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 3 courts 1913–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clinton v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2019The Supreme Court also rejected the President's argument that the Separation of Powers doctrine placed limits on the federal judiciary's authority to interfere with the executive branch because the President's role in American society is unique and his duties so important that he must "devote his undivided time and attention to his public duties" ( id. at 697). 2019The Supreme Court also rejected the President's argument that the Separation of Powers doctrine placed limits on the federal judiciary's authority to interfere with the executive branch because the President's role in American society is unique and his duties so important that he must "devote his undivided time and attention to his public duties" ( id. at 697). | 2 | 2 |
Harlow v. Fitzgeraldgreen2 sentences2019The Court "recognized the unique position in the constitutional scheme'" that the presidency occupies ( id. at 698-699, quoting Fitzgerald, 457 US at 749) but noted that the " separation-of-powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President'" ( Clinton at 705 , quoting Fitzgerald , at 753-754) and does not "require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office" ( Clinton, at 705-706). 2019The Court "recognized the unique position in the constitutional scheme'" that the presidency occupies ( id. at 698-699, quoting Fitzgerald, 457 US at 749) but noted that the " separation-of-powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President'" ( Clinton at 705 , quoting Fitzgerald , at 753-754) and does not "require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office" ( Clinton, at 705-706). | 2 | 2 |
Bourquin v. Cuomogreen2 sentences2003IGRA/Separation of Powers Our analysis of the merits starts with the Constitution's implied separation-of-powers doctrine which "requires that the Legislature make the critical policy decisions, while the executive branch's responsibility is to implement those policies" ( Bourquin v Cuomo, 85 NY2d 781, 784 [1995]). 2003IGRA/Separation of Powers Our analysis of the merits starts with the Constitution’s implied separation-of-powers doctrine which “requires that the Legislature make the critical policy decisions, while the executive branch’s responsibility is to implement those policies” (Bourquin v Cuomo, 85 NY2d 781, 784 [1995]). | 1 | 1 |
Glass v. Thompsongreen1 sentence1989The Legislature, in enacting Family Court Act § 439, has recognized the need to "[ejxpand the powers of hearing examiners in child support cases and require the use of such hearing examiners to expedite child support determinations” (Executive Dept mem, 1985 McKinney’s Sessions Laws of NY, at 3162; see, Glass v Thompson, 51 AD2d 69 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chase v. Scalici
green
1 sentence1989Even if the authority vested in Family Court Hearing Examiners could be shown to infringe in some way upon the province of Family Court Judges, any such infringement would not be an unconstitutional grant of authority because the final authority to review determinations made by Hearing Examiners is reserved for Family Court Judges (cf., Chase v Scalici, 97 AD2d 25 ). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Hooker v. Town Board
green
1 sentence1982Concerning the denial of plaintiff’s motion for reargument, we would note that such denial is not appealable (Matter of Hooker v Toum Bd. of Town of Guilderland, 60 AD2d 684 ). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
In Re the Appraisal Under the Transfer Tax Act of a Certain Trust Fund Held by Harbeck
green
2 sentences1913Such has since been the recognized doctrine of powers .both in this country and in England. 4 Kent, Com. 338; Matter of Harbeck, 161 N. Y. 211, 218 , 55 N. E. 850 . 1913Such has since been the recognized doctrine of powers .both in this country and in England. 4 Kent, Com. 338; Matter of Harbeck, 161 N. Y. 211, 218 , 55 N. E. 850 . | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.