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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 17 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Ribya BB. v. Wing.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ribya BB. v. Wing Anchor | green | “it is not within this court's discretion to weigh conflicting testimony or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative finder of fact” | 9 |
| 2 | Ribya BB. v. Wing | green | “where there are two conflicting accounts of events, it is not within this court's discretion to weigh conflicting testimony or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative finder of fact, even if a contrary result is viable” | 5 |
| 3 | Doctor v. New York State Office of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Services | green | “hearsay is admissible in expungement hearings and, if sufficiently relevant and probative, may constitute substantial evidence to support the underlying determination” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.