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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 12 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 People v. Pinkoski.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Pinkoski Anchor | green | “the penal law does, however, differentiate” | 3 |
| 2 | Bankers Trust Corp. v. New York City Department of Finance | green | “in the absence of anything in the statute indicating an intention to the contrary, where the same word or phrase is used in different parts of a statute, it will be presumed to be used in the same sense throughout, and the same meaning will be attached to similar expressions in …” | 3 |
| 3 | Shapiro v. Syracuse Univ. | green | “plain language revived every covered civil claim or cause of action that would have been properly brought in new york in the first instance, of course subject to applicable provisions of the cplr, including cplr 202” | 3 |
| 4 | Schearer v. Fitzgerald | green | “the availability of the defense of infancy provided for by penal law 30.00(1) in a claim or action commenced pursuant to cplr 214-g does not apply to bar the revival of civil claims and causes of action which otherwise meet the claim-revival requirements provided by cplr 214-g” | 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.