Legal Opinion

People v. . Patrick

New York Court of Appeals

Decided October 27, 1905PublishedCited by 32 opinions

Motion for reargument. (See 182 PT. Y. 131.)

1Opinion of the Court

Cullen, Ch. J.

Though I am one of the minority who dissented from the affirmance of the judgment of conviction in this case, I am entirely clear that the present motion for reargument should he denied. The grounds for such an application are stated by Judge Peckham in Fosdick v. Town of Hempstead (126 N. Y. 651): “ A motion for reargument must be founded on papers showing that some question decisive of the case and duly submitted by counsel has been overlooked by the court, or that the decision is in conflict with the statute or a controlling decision.” The learned judge further observed: “…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In Re the Appointment of a Receiver of the Late Dodge & Stevenson Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1879

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. People v. MorenoNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. People v. . KatzNew York Court of Appeals · 1913
  3. People v. BartolomeoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
  4. Johnson v. HornblassAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
  5. People ex rel. Patrick v. FrostAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API