§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Michael A. Cunningham, Appellant,v.New York State Department of Labor, Respondent.

Brief

20 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Jones

    565 U.S. 400 (2012)   Cited 1,857 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Holding that installation of a tracking device was "a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted"

  2. Payton v. New York

    445 U.S. 573 (1980)   Cited 7,622 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a New York statute "authoriz[ing] police officers to enter a private residence without a warrant and with force, if necessary, to make a routine felony arrest" was "not consistent with the Fourth Amendment"

  3. New Jersey v. T. L. O

    469 U.S. 325 (1985)   Cited 2,002 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches and seizures conducted by public-school officials, establishing the standard for finding a violation, but concluding that the claim at issue failed

  4. O'Connor v. Ortega

    480 U.S. 709 (1987)   Cited 957 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that requiring a warrant for government employers’ work-related searches of employees’ workspaces "would seriously disrupt the routine conduct of business and would be unreasonable"

  5. City of Ontario v. Quon

    560 U.S. 746 (2010)   Cited 334 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the police department's warrantless search of a police officer's pager was reasonable because it was not excessive in scope and was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose

  6. People v. Weaver

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 3762 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 126 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding use of GPS device to track suspect for 65 days was search

  7. In re of an Investigation into the Death of Jon L.

    56 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 269 times
    Holding under New York law that subject of application for sample of bodily identification is entitled to opportunity to be heard before sample can be taken

  8. Delia v. City of Rialto

    621 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 96 times
    Holding that clearly established law did not put defendants on notice that a direct order "with no attendant threat to . . . employment" would invalidate consent

  9. Bingham v. New York City Transit Auth.

    99 N.Y.2d 355 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 75 times

    13 Argued January 14, 2003. Decided February 20, 2003. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 30, 2001, which affirmed an order of the Supreme Court (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered in New York County, granting a motion by defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Constantine P. Kokkoris, for appellant. Lawrence Heisler, for respondents. Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley

  10. Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v. Board of Education of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District

    70 N.Y.2d 57 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 86 times
    Holding that mandatory drug testing of teachers constituted an illegal search in violation of teachers' rights of personal privacy protected by N Y Const, art I, § 12