48 Cited authorities

  1. Arizona v. Washington

    434 U.S. 497 (1978)   Cited 1,650 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court is not required to make a specific finding of manifest necessity or "articulate on the record all the factors which informed the deliberate exercise of [its] discretion" as long as the record as a whole provides sufficient justification for the ruling
  2. United States v. Jorn

    400 U.S. 470 (1971)   Cited 1,608 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was an abuse of discretion for trial judge to declare a mistrial without considering alternatives to the mistrial
  3. Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman

    71 N.Y.2d 564 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 669 times
    In Holtzman, the court held that the trial court does not have the power to terminate a criminal proceeding by default by entering a trial order of dismissal on the merits where no evidence had been presented and the merits of the case had not yet been heard (see also, People v Douglass, 60 N.Y.2d 194, 200-206, supra [discussing the trial court's lack of authority to dismiss a criminal case for "failure to prosecute" or "calendar control"]).
  4. Zumpano v. Quinn

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 1245 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 309 times
    Holding that a party must establish "subsequent and specific actions by defendants somehow kept them from timely bringing suit"
  5. Telegraphers v. Ry. Express Agency

    321 U.S. 342 (1944)   Cited 613 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the principles of J.I. Case apply to RLA cases
  6. Allen v. United States

    164 U.S. 492 (1896)   Cited 2,505 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial court may encourage a deadlocked jury to continue deliberating provided it does so noncoercively
  7. People v. Buford

    69 N.Y.2d 290 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 388 times
    In Buford, the New York Court of Appeals relied solely on its own precedents and not Federal constitutional law to define this term.
  8. Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman

    60 N.Y.2d 46 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 225 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).
  9. Putter v. N Shore Univ Hosp

    7 N.Y.3d 548 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 113 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding equitable estoppel "inappropriate as a matter of law" because defendant's alleged misstatement "did not alter [plaintiff's] timely awareness of the facts requiring him to make further inquiry before the statute of limitations expired"
  10. Matter of Edmead v. McGuire

    67 N.Y.2d 714 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 191 times
    In Edmead, the petitioner knew the determination to retire him was final and, indeed, he went through retirement processing.