§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Working Families Party, Appellant,v.Fern A. Fisher,, et al., Respondents.

Brief

59 Cited authorities

  1. Imbler v. Pachtman

    424 U.S. 409 (1976)   Cited 10,569 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding prosecutors absolutely immune from damages liability for having knowingly presented perjured witness testimony against criminal defendants, observing that the "veracity of witnesses in criminal cases frequently is subject to doubt before and after they testify . . . . If prosecutors were hampered in exercising their judgment as to the use of such witnesses by concern about resulting personal liability, [they often would refrain from calling such witnesses and hence] the triers of fact in criminal cases often would be denied relevant evidence"

  2. Morrison v. Olson

    487 U.S. 654 (1988)   Cited 576 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding an independent counsel to be an inferior officer

  3. Matter of Rush v. Mordue

    68 N.Y.2d 348 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 676 times
    In Matter of Rush v Mordue (68 NY2d 348, supra) and Matter of Brockway v Monroe (59 NY2d 179), the Court of Appeals recognized that prohibition would lie where the case involves a claim that a prosecution is improper because it is barred by immunity.

  4. People v. Moreno

    70 N.Y.2d 403 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 595 times
    Holding that, absent circumstances which require recusal, this was a discretionary determination to be made by the judge alone

  5. Brown v. Appelman

    241 A.D.2d 279 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 345 times
    Denying pre-indictment request by defendant to photograph the crime scene at which a murder occurred in a case in which the death penalty was available

  6. Matter of State of N.Y. v. King

    36 N.Y.2d 59 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 323 times
    In King, then-Chief Judge Breitel, writing for a unanimous Court, concluded that prohibition did not lie to preempt an egregious, prejudicial and unreviewable error of law involving a trial court grant of excessive peremptory challenges in a criminal action (id., at 61-62).

  7. Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman

    60 N.Y.2d 46 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 237 times
    In Matter of Schumer v Holtzman (60 N.Y.2d 46, 55), a case involving removal, we held that generally a public prosecutor should not be removed unless necessary to protect a defendant from "actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence" (id.; see also, People v Herr, 86 N.Y.2d 638; People v Jackson, supra).

  8. Matter Morgenthau v. Erlbaum

    59 N.Y.2d 143 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 231 times
    In Erlbaum, the Court of Appeals clearly stated that declaratory relief may not be sought by a criminal defendant for the purpose of “attacking a criminal court's interlocutory ruling” (Erlbaum, 59 N.Y.2d at 151–152, 464 N.Y.S.2d 392, 451 N.E.2d 150).

  9. Matter of Dondi v. Jones

    40 N.Y.2d 8 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 250 times
    In Matter of Dondi v Jones (40 N.Y.2d 8, 13, supra), we recognized that prohibition would be an appropriate remedy if it were found that a Special Prosecutor was exceeding the authority conferred upon him through Executive Order by prosecuting a particular criminal defendant under an existing indictment.

  10. People v. Di Falco

    44 N.Y.2d 482 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 212 times
    Noting "breadth and importance of the duties placed upon the District Attorney in Grand Jury proceedings"