People v. Primmer
Cases that cite this one
31 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Nash v. Jeffes (3d Cir. 1984)
- United States Ex Rel. Hogan v. Bara (District Court, E.D. New York 1984)
- Nash v. Jeffes (3d Cir. 1984)
- Nash v. Carchman (District Court, D. New Jersey 1983)
- Williams v. Dalsheim (District Court, E.D. New York 1979)
- Weicherding v. Riegel (District Court, C.D. Illinois 1997)
- People v. Alnutt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Alnutt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Piscottano v. Murphy (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2004)
- People v. Madden (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Harden (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- People v. Zambito (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- People v. Whitely (New York Supreme Court 1989)
- People v. Champelle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- McClung v. Marion County Commission (W. Va. 1987)
- People v. Fargher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- People v. Crossen (New York Supreme Court 1985)
- Amiger v. Long (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- People v. Brooks (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- McMullen v. Carson (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1983)
- People v. Allyn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- People v. Gabbidon (New York Supreme Court 1982)
- Engblom v. Carey (District Court, S.D. New York 1981)
- People v. Vidal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- People ex rel. Harrist v. Dalsheim (New York Supreme Court 1981)
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
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant claims that he was denied his right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that he was not afforded a speedy trial within 180 days of his notification to the District Attorney that he was imprisoned in Texas (CPL 580.20). It is conceded, however, that he first raised his alleged deprivation at the Appellate Division; "and, not having raised the issue in the court of first instance, there is no error to be reviewed” (People v Adams, 38 NY2d 605, 607; see, also, People v Adams, 46 NY2d 1047 [decided herewith]). In view of this disposition we do not reach or consider the merits of the issue tendered by defendant.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.