green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
11.6 score
“if a witness disobeys the order of .withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt, and his testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct, he is not thereby disqualified.”
Treatment trajectory · 1900 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1900
1963
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 35 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Washington
if a witness disobeys the order of withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt, and his testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct, he is not thereby disqualified.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Washington
if a witness disobeys the order of .withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt, and his testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct, he is not thereby disqualified.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Redditt v. State
McKnight v. State, 33 Md.App. 280 , 364 A.2d 116 (1976), rev’d on other grounds, 280 Md. 604 , 375 A.2d 551 (1977), presents a review of the case law of Maryland and other jurisdictions and distilled the following principles. “ Tf a witness disobeys the order of withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt and his testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct, he is not thereby disqualified, and the weight of authority is that he cannot be excluded on that ground merely, although the right to exclude under particular circumstances may be supported as withi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mason Braswell v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida
See United States v. Bostic, 327 F.2d 983 (6th Cir. 1964) ; Slocum v. United States, 325 F.2d 465 (8th Cir. 1963) ; Easley v. United States, 261 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1958) ; Degg v. State, 150 Ala. 3 , 43 So. 484, 486 (1907), followed in Mitchell v. State, 28 Ala.App. 119 , 180 So. 119 (1938). 8 . 150 U.S. at 92 , 14 S.Ct. at 10 , 37 L.Ed. at 1010 (emphasis added). 9 . 299 F.2d at 631 . 10 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Guerrera
See State v. David N.J., 301 Conn. 122 , 148, 19 A.3d 646 (2011) (holding that court had discretion to permit cross-examination as remedy for apparent violation of sequestration order in accordance with federal cases, including Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91 , 92, 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 [1893] ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert Andrews v. Hickman County, Tennessee
See United States v. Gibson, 675 F.2d 825, 836 (6th Cir.1982) (“If a witness disobeys [a sequestration] order ... he is not thereby disqualified, and the weight of authority is that he cannot be excluded on that ground [alone].... ” (quoting Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893))).
discussed
Cited "see"
McGuire v. Commonwealth
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893) (“If a witness disobeys the order of withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt and his testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct, he is not thereby disqualified, and the weight of authority is that he cannot be excluded on that ground merely, although the right to exclude under particular circumstances may be supported as within the sound discretion of the trial court.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Larson v. Palmateer
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893) (noting that the trial court had discretion to exclude the testimony of a witness who had not obeyed an exclusion order).
discussed
Cited "see"
Crawford v. United States
(2×)
Brown, 388 A.2d at 456 (“Generally, the violation of the court order must be so egregious that it ‘has somehow so discredited the witness as to render his testimony incredible as a matter of law” ” (citation omitted)); see Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Melendez
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893)("[Tlhe weight of authority is that [a witness] cannot be excluded on [the] ground [of a sequestration violation] merely...."}.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. McCown
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 , 14 S. Ct. 10 , 37 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael Sevane Rhynes, United States of America v. Michael Sevane Rhynes
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893) (observing that a witness who has violated a sequestration order “is not thereby disqualified [from-testifying], and the weight of authority is that he cannot be excluded on that ground” alone, although exclusion may be warranted in some cases); Cropp, 127 F.3d at 363 (expressing hesitation “to endorse the use of such an extreme remedy” as exclusion); see also Department of Energy v. White, 653 F.2d 479, 490 (C.C.P.A.1981) (characterizing exclusion as a “draconian remedy,” the damage of which in that …
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Roth
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); United States v. Lattimore, 902 F.2d 902 (11th Cir.1990).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Amado Gerry Lopez
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Magana
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 , 14 S.Ct. 10, 10-11 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Dayton
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); State v. Leong, 51 Haw. 581 , 465 P. 2d 560 (1970); Commonwealth v. Scott, 496 Pa. 78 , 436 A. 2d 161 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Reynolds
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 , 14 S.Ct. 10, 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); United States v. Jimenez, 780 F.2d 975, 980-81 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Cox, 752 F.2d 741, 748 (1st Cir.1985); Schroff v. State, 627 P.2d 653 (Alaska Ct. App.1981); State v. Wells, 202 Mont. 337, 347-48 , 658 P.2d 381, 386-87 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Gilmore
See United States v. Kiliyan, 456 F.2d 555, 560-61 (8th Cir.1972) (citing Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893)).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Burke
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); State v. Leong, 51 Haw. 581 , 465 P.2d 560 (1970); Commonwealth v. Scott, 496 Pa. 78 , 436 A.2d 161 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
United States Ex Rel. Enoch v. Lane
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); Fendler, 717 F.2d at 1556 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Edmund Edinborough
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 , 14 S.Ct. 10, 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893) (“the right to exclude under particular circumstances may be supported as within the sound discretion of the trial court.”); Young v. United States, 358 F.2d 429, 431 (9th Cir. 1966) (denial of a motion to exclude witnesses lies “within the discretion of the trial court.”); United States v. Postma, 242 F.2d 488, 494 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 354 U.S. 922 , 77 S.Ct. 1380 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1436 (1957) (“it is well established that exclusion of witnesses is a matter for the sound discretion of the trial court…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Edward Rucker
See United States v. Skinner, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 121 , 425 F.2d 552, 555 (1970), with respect to visual evidence, and Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893), with respect to recalling the witness.
cited
Cited "see"
Morgan v. State
See, Brown v. United States, 150 U.S. 93 , 14 S.Ct. 37 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893). .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ralph Santana
See Brown v. United States, 150 U.S. 93 , 14 S.Ct. 37 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ora Ray Robinson
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893).
cited
Cited "see"
United States of America, Charles L. Miller
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. *743 10, 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); United States v. Suarez, 487 F.2d 236 (5th Cir. 1973).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Thomas Norman Torbert
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); Taylor v. United States, 388 F. 2d 786 (9th Cir. 1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
Marshburn v. State
(2×)
See Art. 36.04, supra. The early case of Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893) by the Supreme Court of the United States, cited by appellant, recognized that the right to exclude a witness who had violated the rule under particular circumstances "may be supported as within the sound discretion of the trial court." Appellant has made no effort to show this Court what the testimony of the two witnesses would have been had they been permitted to testify.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. William James McClain Appeal of Rodney Byrd
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); United States v. Marson, 408 F.2d 644, 650 (4th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1056 , 89 S.Ct. 695 , 21 L.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. 5 Cases, More or Less, Containing \Figlia Mia Brand\"
See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 ; Oliver v. United States, 10 Cir., 121 F.2d 245, 250 ; Mitchell v. United States, 10 Cir., 126 F.2d 550 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Troy Dennis Cropp, United States of America v. Clyde Garcia Cropp, United States of America v. Monte Clay Mosley
See, e.g., Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Samuel H. McMahon Jr.
(2×)
See, e.g., Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert Harold FENDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert GOLDSMITH, and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Defendants-Appellees
(2×)
See, e.g., Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); Braswell v. Wainwright, 463 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir.1972). 10 Discovery rules, on the other hand, have no effect on the probative value of otherwise admissible evidence..
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jack Lesley Marson
(2×)
See, e.g., Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893) ; United States v. Leggett, 326 F.2d 613 (4 Cir. 1964) ; United States v. Johnson, 345 F.2d 457 (6 Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 836 , 86 S.Ct. 83 , 15 L.Ed.2d 79 (1965) ; Spindler v. United States, 336 F.2d 678 (9 Cir. 1964), cert. denied, Richards v. United States, 380 U.S. 909 , 85 S.Ct. 894 , 13 L.Ed.2d 797 (1965).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Coonan v. Baltimore & O. R.
See, also, Holder v. U. S., 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Schuyler Nat. Bank
v.
Bollong. Three Cases
v.
Bollong. Three Cases
Nos. 38, 39, and 317.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 30, 1893.
Published
Citer courts: Tenth Circuit (2)
SCHUYLER NAT. BANK
v.
BOLLONG. Three Cases.
Nos. 38, 39, and 317.
October 30, 1893.
Wm. Twombly and J. G. Bigelow, for plaintiff in error.
C. J. Phelps and Clifton O. Sabin, for defendant in error.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER.
1
These cases were submitted at the same time with Bank v. Bollong, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24, (just decided,) and must be disposed of in the same way. Writs of error dismissed.