SHEPARDIZING IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY
SUMMARIES OF DECISIONS WHICH ARE SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED, MODIFIED, REMITTED, REARGUED, OVERRULED, ETC., REMAIN IN THE NEW YORK APPELLATE DIGEST DATABASE AND ARE NOT FLAGGED
When an Appellate Division decision is reversed, modified, remitted, reargued, overruled, etc., by the Court of Appeals, the summary of any related Appellate Division decision in the New York Appellate Digest database is not flagged.
I have made an effort to summarize every substantive Court of Appeals decision released since January 2013, and every reversal by the Court of Appeals, even if the reversal-decision is not substantive.
To check whether a specific case has been reviewed by the Court of Appeals since January, 2013, in the “Search by Keywords” line of the search panel (on the right side of the page) type the name of a party in the case (in quotes) and CtApp (in quotes) and click on “Search.” Some irrelevant decision-summaries may come up, i.e., a search for a party named “Jones” will also pull up summaries mentioning the “Jones Act,” but if the case has been reviewed by the Court of Appeals since 2013 it should appear in the search.
A reversal, however, is not the only way a decision can be rendered obsolete. Decisions at both the Court of Appeals and Appellate Division levels sometimes indicate prior contrary rulings should not be followed. One Appellate Division department may expressly disagree with rulings on the same issue made in other departments. Decisions may subsequently be reargued, leading to a different result.
THE BOTTOM LINE: WHATEVER METHOD YOU TRUST TO ENSURE A PARTICULAR DECISION REMAINS GOOD LAW SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE DECISION-SUMMARIES IN THE NEW YORK APPELLATE DIGEST DATABASE