- Subin v. Goldsmith
- Garrity v. New Jersey
385 U.S. 493, 497 n.5 (1967), 87 S. Ct. 616, 619 n.5
- Cites Lamm, "The 5th Amendment and Its Equivalent in Jewish Law, 17 Decalogue
Journal (Jan.-Feb. 1967) re: Halacha and self-incrimination
- Wilson v. Beame
- Application of Juan R.
374 NYS2d 541, 84 Misc2d 580 (Fam. Ct. Kings County, 1975)
- "It is not unreasonable to assume" that the "thirteen principles
enumerated by Rabbi Ishmael" played a major role in the development of common-law,
and therefore a "kal v'chomer" (judge's words) could be applied to enactment of
- Charles J. Miller, Inc. v. McLung-Logan Equip.
- People v. Jackson,
149 A.D. 2d 532, 539 N.Y.S. 2d 997 (Second Dept. 1989)
- Trial court erred in not adjourning court on a Friday until the following Monday in
order to accommodate a Sabbath Observant Juror; nonetheless, replacement by the alternate
juror was not sufficient harm to overturn the conviction.
- Estep v. Dent,
- United States v. Somerstien,
- Cohn-Frankel v. United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
246 A.D.2d 332, 667 N.Y.S.2d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept. 1998). Dated January 8,
- Teenager who joined summer tour for Jewish children and who communicated her belief in
Christianity to the other children and to tour counselors did not have a cause of action
for intentional infliction of emotional distress when she was expelled from the tour.
- Jews For Jesus v. Brodsky
993 F. Supp. 282 (D. N.J. 1998), Civil Action No. 98-274 (AJL). Dated March 6, 1998.
Opinion by J. Lechner.
- Preliminary injunction granted to "Jews for Jesus an organization engaged in
Christian missionary activity, so as to prevent defendant, an opponent of plaintiffs
work, from maintaining an Internet Web site titled "jewsforjesus.org";
application of laws governing trademarks and unfair competition
- Hack v. The President and Fellows of Yale College
16 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D. Conn. 1998), Civil No. 3:97CV02212 (AVC). Dated July 31, 1998.
Opinion by J. Alfred V. Covello.
- Yale College denied plaintiffs, Orthodox Jewish freshmen and sophomores, the right to
reside off campus, even though they objected on religious grounds to being required to
reside on campus in co-educational residence halls; claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violation of plaintiffs free exercise of religion dismissed as Yale was not acting
under color of state law; plaintiffs did not have standing to sue under the federal Fair
Housing Act and they did not state a cause of action under the Sherman Antitrust Act; all
federal claims having been dismissed, the court refused to entertain the remaining state
law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
- Korablina v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
158 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 1998), No. 97-70361. Dated October 23, 1998. Opinion by J.
- Immigration; evidence compelled a finding of past persecution and a well-founded fear of
future persecution against Ukrainian Jew.
- Classen v. Ashkinazy
686 N.Y.S.2d 164 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). Dated February 25, 1999. Opinion by J. Mikoll.
- Plaintiff counsel's remarks in the summation to a dental malpractice action analogizing the Jewish wedding custom of breaking a glass to the destruction of trust between plaintiff and defendant in their dentist-patient relationship was not an improper reference to defendant=s race, nationality or religion.
- Lightman v. Flaum
, 179 Misc. 2d 1007, 687 N.Y.S.2d 562 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1999), Index No. 2169/97. Dated March 4, 1999. Opinion by J. David Goldstein.
- Unauthorized disclosure during child custody dispute of wife's confidential communications to Rabbis concerning relationships with other men and her cessation of the observation of religious laws of ritual purity following menses so she would not have to engage in sexual relations with her husband violated clergy-penitent privilege unless made in the presence of third persons; such disclosure subjected Rabbis to action in damages, both for violation of the privilege and for intentional infliction of emotional distress; however, Rabbi's statements in an affidavit submitted to the court in the context of a marital proceeding to determine temporary child custody were privileged and action in defamation had to be dismissed; New York law.