People v. Fanning
People v. Fanning
89 N.E.2d 881; 300 N.Y. 593; 1949 N.Y. LEXIS 1453
(North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)
Cases that cite this one
25 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Williams (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)
- People v. Williams (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)
- People v. Yamin (New York Supreme Court 1965)
- People v. Robertson (N.Y. 1963)
- People v. Fleming (New York Court of General Session of the Peace 1961)
- People v. Watford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1969)
- People v. Wilder (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1966)
- People v. Fein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1965)
- People v. Lo Cicero (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1964)
- People v. Hunter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1962)
- People v. Rohrlich (Kings County Court 1962)
- People v. Portner (New York Court of General Session of the Peace 1962)
- People v. Burrell (New York Supreme Court 1962)
- People v. Mysholowsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1961)
- People v. Troiani (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1961)
- People v. Stevenson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1961)
- People v. Homchak (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1961)
- People v. Sims (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1961)
- People v. Seymour (New York County Courts 1961)
- People v. Hunter (New York Court of General Session of the Peace 1961)
- People v. Nadile (New York Supreme Court 1960)
- People v. Costello (New York Court of Special Session 1959)
- People v. Neeley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1957)
- People v. Lesser (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1952)
- People v. Richetti (N.Y. 1951)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The defendant’s petition does not sufficiently allege a case of fraudulent use of perjured testimony by the prosecuting attorney to warrant relief by a coram nobis proceeding. The order should be affirmed.
Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed. [See 300 N. Y. 677.]
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.