TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Rudish

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sidney Rudish, Appellant

People v. Rudish, 63 N.E.2d 77 (N.Y. 1945)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 19, 1945
Judges
<italic>Per Curiam.</italic>
Citations
63 N.E.2d 77294 N.Y. 500
Cited by 11

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

Upon this reargument we assume that the evidence against Eudish was sufficient and that as to him no error of law was committed upon the trial. Nevertheless, since the Supreme Court of the United States directed a new trial as to Malinski because one of his confessions was inadmissible, the defendant Eudish should, in the interest of justice, receive a new trial with that confession excluded.

The judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered- Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Desmond, Thacher and Dye, JJ., concur; Lewis and Conway, JJ., dissent on the ground that the decision on this reargument should await the retrial of People v. Malinski.

Judgment of conviction reversed, etc.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1945: 21948: 11953: 11957: 11961: 11963: 11965: 11966: 11968: 11970: 119452026peak 1945 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Stein v. New York346 U.S. 156 (1953)
  2. People v. Aranda407 P.2d 265 (Cal. 1965)
  3. People v. Donovan193 N.E.2d 628 (N.Y. 1963)
  4. People v. Waterman175 N.E.2d 445 (N.Y. 1961)
  5. People v. Caminito4 A.D.2d 697 (1957)
  6. People v. Wheatman34 A.D.2d 3 (1970) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. People v. Wheatman34 A.D.2d 3 (1970) · Dissent
  2. People v. Burd238 N.E.2d 746 (N.Y. 1968)
  3. People v. Cender219 N.E.2d 200 (N.Y. 1966)
  4. People v. Aranda407 P.2d 265 (Cal. 1965)
  5. People v. Donovan193 N.E.2d 628 (N.Y. 1963)
  6. People v. Waterman175 N.E.2d 445 (N.Y. 1961)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list