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 3 cases, quoted by 9 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 The People v. Mark Jurgins.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The People v. Mark Jurgins Anchor | green | “general rule limits the inquiry 'to a comparison of the crimes' elements as they are respectively defined in the foreign and new york penal statutes” | 3 |
| 2 | People v. Ramos | green | “because new york law requires proof of an element that federal law does not,” | 3 |
| 3 | People v. Smith | green | “person is unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act.” | 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.