37 Cited authorities

  1. Williams v. Taylor

    529 U.S. 362 (2000)   Cited 32,449 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel's failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence was deficient even though "not all of the additional evidence was favorable to Williams"
  2. United States v. Menasche

    348 U.S. 528 (1955)   Cited 688 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting an interpretation of a statutory provision that would nullify the effect of another provision
  3. Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. City of New York

    41 N.Y.2d 205 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 372 times

    Argued October 12, 1976 Decided December 22, 1976 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, GEORGE STARKE, J. W. Bernard Richland, Corporation Counsel (James G. Greilsheimer and L. Kevin Sheridan of counsel), New York City, for appellant. Frederick R. Livingston, Jay W. Waks and William C. Zifchak, New York City, for respondent. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (George D. Zuckerman and Samuel A. Hirshowitz of counsel), New York City, for intervenor

  4. Sanders v. Winship

    57 N.Y.2d 391 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 187 times
    Holding that all parts of the statute should be harmonized and given its full effect and meaning if possible
  5. People v. Mobil Oil Corp.

    48 N.Y.2d 192 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 134 times
    Posting of signs
  6. Mtr. of Belmonte v. Snashall

    2 N.Y.3d 560 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 51 times
    Observing that agency interpretation is entitled to deference if interpretation involves “some type of specialized knowledge,” but that no deference is warranted where “the question is one of pure statutory reading and analysis”
  7. Matter of Bliss v. Bliss

    66 N.Y.2d 382 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 67 times
    In Matter of Bliss v Bliss (66 NY2d 382), the former wife had been living with another man for 12 years, but there was no evidence that she was representing herself as married to her companion (see also Szemansco v Szemansco, 11 AD3d 787; Matter of Messineo v Messineo, 196 AD2d 826; cf. Karl v Karl, 138 AD2d 354, 355-357 [1988, Weinstein, J., concurring], lv denied 72 NY2d 803).
  8. Claim of Bruno v. Kelly Temp Service

    301 A.D.2d 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 17 times

    92364 Decided and Entered: January 2, 2003. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed November 26, 2001, which ruled that apportionment applied to claimant's workers' compensation award. Segar Sciortino, Rochester (Stephen A. Segar of counsel), for appellant. Hamberger Weiss, Rochester (Ronald E. Weiss of counsel), for Kelly Temp Service and another, respondents. Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and, Lahtinen, JJ. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Crew III, J. In 1997, claimant

  9. Montclair v. Ramsdell

    107 U.S. 147 (1882)   Cited 272 times
    In Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, Otoe County v. Baldwin, 111 U.S. 1, 16, and Ackley School District v. Hall, 113 U.S. 135, we had occasion to consider the same general question, with the same result, in connection with similar provisions in the constitutions of New Jersey, Nebraska and Iowa respectively.
  10. Claim of Krebs v. Town of Ithaca

    293 A.D.2d 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 17 times

    89106 Decided and Entered: April 18, 2002. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed May 23, 2000, which ruled, inter alia, that apportionment did not apply to claimant's award of workers' compensation benefits. James P. O'Connor, State Insurance Fund, Liverpool (Susan B. Marris of counsel), for appellants. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, Albany (Claire T. O'Keefe of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent. Before: Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen

  11. Section 500.1 - General requirements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1   Cited 1 times

    (a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1 -a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation