Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Porter v. Milhoratgreen2 sentences2013Inasmuch as there was no error in reporting the verdict and the record does not demonstrate substantial confusion among the jurors, the two exceptions to the general rule prohibiting jurors from impeaching their own verdict, plaintiffs may not use the juror affidavits in an attempt to impeach the verdict (see Porter v Milhorat, 26 AD3d 424, 424 [2006]). 2013Inasmuch as there was no error in reporting the verdict and the record does not demonstrate substantial confusion among the jurors, the two exceptions to the general rule prohibiting jurors from impeaching their own verdict, plaintiffs may not use the juror affidavits in an attempt to impeach the verdict (see Porter v Milhorat, 26 AD3d 424, 424 [2006]). | 2 | 3 |
McDonald v. Plessgreen2 sentences1994"The policy reasons behind the rule [against impeaching a verdict] are to prevent 'the post-trial harassing of jurors for statements which might render their verdicts questionable’ and to avoid the chaos that a contrary rule would create (People v De Lucia, 20 NY2d 275, 278 ; see, McDonald v Pless, 238 US 264, 267-268 ; King v United States, 576 F2d 432, 438 [2d Cir])” (Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449 , 460). 1985The policy reasons behind the rule are to prevent “the posttrial harassing of jurors for statements which might render their verdicts questionable” and to avoid the chaos that a contrary rule would create (People v De Lucia, 20 NY2d 275, 278 ; see, McDonald v Pless, 238 US 264, 267-268 ; King v United States, 576 F2d 432, 438 [2d Cir]). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. De Lucia
green
2 sentences1994"The policy reasons behind the rule [against impeaching a verdict] are to prevent 'the post-trial harassing of jurors for statements which might render their verdicts questionable’ and to avoid the chaos that a contrary rule would create (People v De Lucia, 20 NY2d 275, 278 ; see, McDonald v Pless, 238 US 264, 267-268 ; King v United States, 576 F2d 432, 438 [2d Cir])” (Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449 , 460). 1985The policy reasons behind the rule are to prevent “the posttrial harassing of jurors for statements which might render their verdicts questionable” and to avoid the chaos that a contrary rule would create (People v De Lucia, 20 NY2d 275, 278 ; see, McDonald v Pless, 238 US 264, 267-268 ; King v United States, 576 F2d 432, 438 [2d Cir]). | 2 | 1985–1994 |
In re Charles A. Field Delivery Service, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015The policy reasons behind the requirement of consistent results — particularly "guidance for those governed by the determination made" and "stability in the law" — are not advanced by requiring the food vendor, regulated by DOHMH, to anticipate being subjected to vending restrictions directed at the general vendor and promulgated by DCA ( Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. , [Roberts] 66 NY2d at 519 ). 2015The policy reasons behind the requirement of consistent results — particularly “guidance for those governed by the determination made” and “stability in the law” — are not advanced by requiring the food vendor, regulated by DOHMH, to anticipate being subjected to vending restrictions directed at the general vendor and promulgated by DCA (Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 NY2d at 519 ). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Gamell v. Mount Sinai Hospital
green
1 sentence1994"In the absence of good cause, jurors should be protected against posttrial efforts to 'browse among their thoughts’ in an effort to invalidate their verdict” (Gamell v Mount Sinai Hosp., 40 AD2d 1010, 1011 , lv dismissed 32 NY2d 678 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Gamell v. Mount Sinai Hospital
green
1 sentence1994"In the absence of good cause, jurors should be protected against posttrial efforts to 'browse among their thoughts’ in an effort to invalidate their verdict” (Gamell v Mount Sinai Hosp., 40 AD2d 1010, 1011 , lv dismissed 32 NY2d 678 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.