§Why CasetextPricing

Karine Gevorkyan, et al., Appellants,v.Ira Judelson, Respondent.

Brief

18 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Salerno

    481 U.S. 739 (1987)   Cited 5,379 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "extensive safeguards" are necessary "to repel a facial challenge"

  2. Bearden v. Georgia

    461 U.S. 660 (1983)   Cited 1,390 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the State may enforce judgments against indigents by even such intrusive means as compelled "labor or public service"

  3. Griffin v. Illinois

    351 U.S. 12 (1956)   Cited 3,152 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that preventing an indigent defendant from appealing his conviction due to his failure to pay for a trial transcript is unconstitutional

  4. Williams v. Illinois

    399 U.S. 235 (1970)   Cited 863 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state cannot subject convicted defendants to a period of imprisonment beyond the statutory maximum solely because they are too poor to pay the fine imposed

  5. Tate v. Short

    401 U.S. 395 (1971)   Cited 687 times
    Holding that a state cannot convert a fine into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot immediately pay the fine in full

  6. Schilb v. Kuebel

    404 U.S. 357 (1971)   Cited 226 times
    Finding that the Bail Bond Fee "smacks of administrative detail and of procedure and is hardly to be classified as a ‘fundamental’ right or as based upon any suspect criterion"

  7. People ex Rel. Klein v. Krueger

    25 N.Y.2d 497 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 582 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People ex rel. Klein v. Krueger (25 N.Y.2d 497, 501) the Court of Appeals held that habeas corpus was a proper vehicle for the review of the denial of bail. (See, also, People ex rel. Parone v. Phimister, 29 N.Y.2d 580, 581.)

  8. People v. Fuller

    57 N.Y.2d 152 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 252 times
    In People v. Fuller, 57 N.Y.2d 152, 455 N.Y.S.2d 253 (1982), the New York Court of Appeals applied a narrow exception to the preservation doctrine in a case where the trial court exceeded its statutory authority, thereby levying an unlawful sentence. Id. at 156-59, 455 N.Y.S.2d at 255-56; accord, e.g., People v. Samms, 95 N.Y.2d 52, 55-56, 710 N.Y.S.2d 310, 312-313 (2000) (failure to object at the time of sentencing did not render the challenge unpreserved, because the sentence was imposed in violation of a statutory mandate and therefore was unauthorized).

  9. Pugh v. Rainwater

    572 F.2d 1053 (5th Cir. 1978)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that a state has "a compelling interest in assuring the presence at trial of persons charged with crime"

  10. People ex rel. McManus v. Horn

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 2121 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 26 times
    Granting leave to appeal denial of N.Y. C.P.L.R. Article 70 habeas petition

  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