SD of Up Dublin v. Mont Co BAA (Gen'l Auto)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the “very essence” of the rule is the state’s “interest in allowing the trial court to have the first opportunity to rule on and possibly rectify any alleged legal error”
• finding that, where perfect compliance could have impacted the trial court’s decision, application of New York’s contemporaneous objection rule was not exorbitant
• noting that the “very essence” of the rule is the state’s “interest in allowing the trial court to have the first opportunity to rule on and possibly rectify any alleged legal error”
• finding “the defendant violated the very essence of [the contemporaneous objection rule]” by failing to object at trial
• collecting cases to show that “New York’s highest courts uniformly instruct that to preserve a particular issue for appeal, [a] defendant must specifically focus on the alleged error”
• “New York’s highest courts uniformly instruct that to preserve a particular issue for appeal, defendant must specifically focus on the alleged error.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).