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 2013–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Boonegreen2 sentences2015That determination “constitutes the law of the case, and, absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine, the defendant is precluded from having this issue reconsidered” (People v Martinez, 194 AD2d 741, 741-742 [1993] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Boone, 84 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011]). 2013That determination “constitutes the law of the case, and, absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine, the defendant is precluded from having this issue reconsidered” (People v Martinez, 194 AD2d 741, 741-742 [1993] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Boone, 84 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011]; People v Riley, 22 AD3d 609, 610 [2005]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2015That determination “constitutes the law of the case, and, absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine, the defendant is precluded from having this issue reconsidered” (People v Martinez, 194 AD2d 741, 741-742 [1993] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Boone, 84 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011]). 2013That determination “constitutes the law of the case, and, absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine, the defendant is precluded from having this issue reconsidered” (People v Martinez, 194 AD2d 741, 741-742 [1993] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Boone, 84 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011]; People v Riley, 22 AD3d 609, 610 [2005]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Bakergreen2 sentences2024The defense acknowledges "there is a 'law of the case doctrine' that typically should be followed" (Defense Memo at 7). [FN4] The defense also concedes that "when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned" "absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine" ( Matter of Koegel , 184 AD3d 764, 765 [2d Dept 2020], affd sub nom Anderson v Anderson , 37 NY3d 444 [2021], quoting Martin v City of 2024The defense acknowledges "there is a 'law of the case doctrine' that typically should be followed" (Defense Memo at 7). [FN4] The defense also concedes that "when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned" "absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine" ( Matter of Koegel , 184 AD3d 764, 765 [2d Dept 2020], affd sub nom Anderson v Anderson , 37 NY3d 444 [2021], quoting Martin v City of | 2 | 2 |
Martin v. City of Cohoesgreen2 sentences2024The defense acknowledges "there is a 'law of the case doctrine' that typically should be followed" (Defense Memo at 7). [FN4] The defense also concedes that "when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned" "absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine" ( Matter of Koegel , 184 AD3d 764, 765 [2d Dept 2020], affd sub nom Anderson v Anderson , 37 NY3d 444 [2021], quoting Martin v City of 2024The defense acknowledges "there is a 'law of the case doctrine' that typically should be followed" (Defense Memo at 7). [FN4] The defense also concedes that "when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned" "absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine" ( Matter of Koegel , 184 AD3d 764, 765 [2d Dept 2020], affd sub nom Anderson v Anderson , 37 NY3d 444 [2021], quoting Martin v City of | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Koegelgreen2 sentences2024The defense acknowledges "there is a 'law of the case doctrine' that typically should be followed" (Defense Memo at 7). [FN4] The defense also concedes that "when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned" "absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine" ( Matter of Koegel , 184 AD3d 764, 765 [2d Dept 2020], affd sub nom Anderson v Anderson , 37 NY3d 444 [2021], quoting Martin v City of 2024The defense acknowledges "there is a 'law of the case doctrine' that typically should be followed" (Defense Memo at 7). [FN4] The defense also concedes that "when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned" "absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine" ( Matter of Koegel , 184 AD3d 764, 765 [2d Dept 2020], affd sub nom Anderson v Anderson , 37 NY3d 444 [2021], quoting Martin v City of | 2 | 2 |
People v. Rileygreen2 sentences2013That determination “constitutes the law of the case, and, absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine, the defendant is precluded from having this issue reconsidered” (People v Martinez, 194 AD2d 741, 741-742 [1993] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Boone, 84 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011]; People v Riley, 22 AD3d 609, 610 [2005]). 2013That determination “constitutes the law of the case, and, absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine, the defendant is precluded from having this issue reconsidered” (People v Martinez, 194 AD2d 741, 741-742 [1993] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Boone, 84 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011]; People v Riley, 22 AD3d 609, 610 [2005]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Breazilgreen2 sentences2020Our determination on the prior appeal, however, "constitutes the law of the case, and, absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine, . . . defendant is precluded from having this issue reconsidered" ( People v Breazil , 110 AD3d 913 , 913 [2d Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1039 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Wells , 93 AD3d 1172, 1173 [4th Dept 2012]; see generally People v Evans , 94 NY2d 499, 502-503 [2000], rearg denied 96 NY2d 755 [2001]). 2020Defendant has made no such showing here ( see Breazil , 110 AD3d at 913; Wells , 93 AD3d at 1173 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Evansgreen1 sentence2020Our determination on the prior appeal, however, "constitutes the law of the case, and, absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine, . . . defendant is precluded from having this issue reconsidered" ( People v Breazil , 110 AD3d 913 , 913 [2d Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1039 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Wells , 93 AD3d 1172, 1173 [4th Dept 2012]; see generally People v Evans , 94 NY2d 499, 502-503 [2000], rearg denied 96 NY2d 755 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Whitmergreen2 sentences2020Our determination on the prior appeal, however, "constitutes the law of the case, and, absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine, . . . defendant is precluded from having this issue reconsidered" ( People v Breazil , 110 AD3d 913 , 913 [2d Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1039 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Wells , 93 AD3d 1172, 1173 [4th Dept 2012]; see generally People v Evans , 94 NY2d 499, 502-503 [2000], rearg denied 96 NY2d 755 [2001]). 2020Defendant has made no such showing here ( see Breazil , 110 AD3d at 913; Wells , 93 AD3d at 1173 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Antoine
green
2 sentences2024The defense acknowledges "there is a 'law of the case doctrine' that typically should be followed" (Defense Memo at 7). [FN4] The defense also concedes that "when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned" "absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine" ( Matter of Koegel , 184 AD3d 764, 765 [2d Dept 2020], affd sub nom Anderson v Anderson , 37 NY3d 444 [2021], quoting Martin v City of 2024The defense acknowledges "there is a 'law of the case doctrine' that typically should be followed" (Defense Memo at 7). [FN4] The defense also concedes that "when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned" "absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine" ( Matter of Koegel , 184 AD3d 764, 765 [2d Dept 2020], affd sub nom Anderson v Anderson , 37 NY3d 444 [2021], quoting Martin v City of | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Oliver
green
1 sentence2015Under the circumstances of this case, there is no basis to reconsider that issue (see People v Breazil, 110 AD3d 913 [2013]; People v Oliver, 82 AD3d 1267 [2011]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.