Legal Opinion

Duffy v. Wetzler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 15, 1992PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Thompson, J. P.

The main issue arising at bar is whether the decision in the instant case should be applied retroactively, or prospectively, pursuant to the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in James Beam Distilling Co. v Georgia (501 US —, 111 S Ct 2439 [hereinafter Beam]). We conclude that an analysis of Beam requires prospective application on the facts. For the reasons which follow therefore, we modify the order and judgment from which the first appeal ensues, and affirm the orders appealed from.

I

The plaintiffs commenced this action on May 9, 1989, on…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Chevron Oil Co. v. HusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Davis v. Michigan Department of the TreasurySupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Lehr v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1991

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Brumley v. Utah State Tax CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Duffy v. WetzlerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
  3. Duffy v. WetzlerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  4. Brumley v. Utah State Tax CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Duffy v. WetzlerNew York Supreme Court · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API