green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
9.1 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1987 ·
…rules which exclude relevant evidence which is not competent are permissible
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Major Burrus v. Warren Young, Superintendent, and the Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin
(2×)
rules which exclude relevant evidence which is not competent are permissible
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Bass v. Spitz
e recognize the trial judge's discretion to confine the testimony of the expert within the limits of the facts shown.
examined
Cited "see"
Drilex Systems, Inc. v. Flores
(4×)
See Morvant v. Construction Aggregates Corp., 570 F.2d 626, 630 (6 th Cir.) (“[H]ad the framers intended [an automatic exemption for experts], they would have said so, or added a fourth exception.”), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 44 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Opus 3 Limited v. Heritage Park, Incorporated, and Paul Stein, and James O'Brien David Kopp David J. Mislin John Does, Third Party
See Morvant v. Construction Aggregates Corp., 570 F.2d 626, 630 (6th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 44 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Wong
See Hughes v. Mathews (C.A.7, 1978), 576 F.2d 1250 , certiorari denied (1978), 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 43 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. George Lee Kosko
See Morvant v. Construction Aggregates Corporation, 570 F.2d 626, 629 (6th Cir.1978), ce rt. denied, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 44 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Keystone Insurance v. Houghton
See County of Cook v. Berger, 648 F.Supp. 433 (N.D.Ill.1986) (relying on US. v. Field, 432 F.Supp. 55, 59 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd mem., 578 F.2d 1371 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 43 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978)); accord Charter Oak Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Tillman
(2×)
The major purpose of the crime of felony murder is to reach negligent or accidental killings that would not otherwise qualify as murder."); see also Wilson, 1 Cal.3d at 440 , 462 P.2d at 28 , 82 Cal. Rptr. at 500 ; State v. Lashley, 233 Kan. 620, 631 , 664 P.2d 1358, 1369 (1983). [85] Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-202 (Supp. 1973); see also Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-202 (1978 & Supp. 1987). [86] Model Penal Code § 210.6(3) (1980). [87] Model Penal Code § 210.2 (1980); see also § 210.2 comment 7, at 42 (1980). [88] Model Penal Code § 210.6 comment 7, at 142 (1980). [89] Id.; see also § 210.6 comment…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Croom
See generally Morvant v. Construction Aggregates Corp., 570 F.2d 626, 629 (6th Cir. 1978) (“We perceive little, if any, reason for sequestering a witness who is to testify in an expert capacity only and not to the facts of the case.”), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 44 ; 54 L.Ed.2d 94 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Rogers
See id. at 1051-52 (duplicative evidence may be excluded in court’s discretion) . . . see also Hughes v. Matthews, 576 F.2d 1250, 1258 (7th Cir.) (‘the right of a defendant to present relevant and competent evidence is not absolute and may “bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process” ’), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S. Ct. 43 , 58 L.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Castellano
See United States v. Field, 432 F.Supp. 55, 59 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (Lasker, J.), summarily affd, 578 F.2d 1371 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 43 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
The Kansas Power & Light Company, State Corporation Commission of the State of Kansas, Intervening v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company
See McLouth Steel Corp. v. Jewell Coal & Coke Co., 570 F.2d 594 (6th Cir.1978), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 43 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles T. Walsh and Bowe, Walsh & Associates
See United States v. Field, 432 F.Supp. 55, 59 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff’d mem., 578 F.2d 1371 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 43 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Thomas Burgess
See Morvant v. Construction Aggregates Corp., 570 F.2d 626, 629-30 (6th Cir. 1978), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 44 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lawrence Gilbert Chesher
(2×)
See United States v. Field, 432 F.Supp. 55, 59-60 (D.C.N.Y.1977), aff’d. mem., 578 F.2d 1371 (2d Cir.), cert, dism’d., 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 43 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Martin v. Porak
See Morvant v. Construction Aggregates Corp., 570 F.2d 626 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 44 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978); Skidmore v. Northwest Engineering Co., 90 F.R.D. 75 (S.D.Fla.1981).
cited
Cited "see"
South States Oil & Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
See Tenneco Oil Co. v. FERC, 571 F.2d 834, 837 (5th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 43 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
(D.I. 159, p. 8.) On the basis of this representation, the Court concludes that Mr. Lank’s presence is essential and he will be permitted to remain in the courtroom. 3 Weinstein’s Evidence ¶ 615[1] at 615-8; see Morvant v. Construction Aggregates Corp., 570 F.2d 626 (C.A.6), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 44 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Miskovsky v. State
(2×)
See also United States v. Field, 432 F.Supp. 55, 59 (S.D.N.Y.1977), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 43 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978). .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Garmon v. United States
See, e.g., Morvant v. Construction Aggregates Corp., 570 F.2d 626, 629-630 (6th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 44 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Strickland v. Linahan
See also, Hughes v. Mathews, 576 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir.1978) (no Fifth Amendment violation by admitting psychiatric testimony when the defendant admitted that he did the act and argued only that he lacked the specific intent required by the act), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 43 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Malek v. Federal Insurance Company
Rule 615(3) provides an exception for "a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party's cause." The advisory committee notes specify that the exception contemplates "an expert needed to advise counsel in the management of the litigation." Fed.R.Evid. 615(3) advisory committee notes; see Trans World Metals, Inc. v. South Wire Co., 769 F.2d 902, 911 (2d Cir.1985) (expert allowed to remain in the courtroom for the testimony of the adversary's expert); see also Morvant v. Construction Aggregates Corp., 570 F.2d 626, 630 (6th Cir.) ("where a fair showin…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Malek v. Federal Insurance
Rule 615(3) provides an exception for “a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause.” The advisory committee notes specify that the exception contemplates “an expert needed to advise counsel in the management of the litigation.” Fed.R.Evid. 615(3) advisory committee notes; see Trans World Metals, Inc. v. South Wire Co., 769 F.2d 902, 911 (2d Cir.1985) (expert allowed to remain in the courtroom for the testimony of the adversary’s expert); see also Morvant v. Construction Aggregates Corp., 570 F.2d 626, 630 (6th Cir.) (“where…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Windsor Shirt Co. v. New Jersey National Bank
See, e.g., *618 Cannon, 519 F.Supp. at 678 (court lifted sequestration for expert and lay witness who was an attorney); see also Morvant v. Construction Aggregates Corp., 570 F.2d 626, 629-30 (6th Cir.1978), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 44 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978) (expert witness is not automatically exempt from sequestration under Rule 615(3)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Goodman v. West Coast Brace & Limb, Inc.
See also Morvant v. Construction Aggregates Corp., 570 F.2d 626 (6th Cir.1978), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 44 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bosak v. Hutchinson
(2×)
See, e.g., Morvant v Construction Aggregates Corp, 570 F2d 626 (CA 6, 1978), cert dis 439 US 801 (1978); Doca v Marina Mercante Nicaraguense, SA, 634 F2d 30 (CA 2, 1980), cert den sub nom Pittston Stevedoring Corp v *753 Doca, 451 US 971 (1981); Cords v Anderson, 80 Wis 2d 525 ; 259 NW2d 672 (1977); Kaczkowski v Bolubasz, 491 Pa 561; 421 A2d 1027 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Daniel Bifield
See id. at 1051-52 (duplicative evidence may be excluded in court’s discretion); United States v. DeStefano, 476 F.2d 324, 330 (7th Cir.1973) (court violates accused person’s constitutional right to present full defense when it denies him right to call an available witness, but no violation occurs unless witness denied to defendant could have produced relevant and material testimony); see also Hughes v. Matthews, 576 F.2d 1250, 1258 (7th Cir.) (“the right of a defendant to present relevant and competent evidence is not absolute and may ‘bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Michael James Ardoin v. J. Ray McDermott & Company, Inc. And Xyz Insurance Company
See, e.g., Morvant v. Construction Aggregates Corporation, 570 F.2d 626 (6th Cir. 1978), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 44 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
The Upjohn Company v. Rachelle Laboratories, Inc. And International Rectifier Corporation,defendants-Appellants
See, e. g., McLouth Steel Corp. v. Jewell Coal and Coke Co., 570 F.2d 594, 608 (6th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 43 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Vanderbush Sheet Metal Co.
See, e. g., McLouth Steel Corp. v. Jewell Coal & Coke Co., 570 F.2d 594 (6th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801 , 99 S.Ct. 43 , 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978); Mott v. Rowland, 85 Mich. 561 , 48 N.W. 638 (1891); Lake States Engineering Corp. v. Lawrence Seaway Corp., supra. In this case, the documents which comprise the contract are printed forms and typed pages on Toledo’s letterhead.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Field
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 77-1674.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jul 18, 1978.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Seventh Circuit (2) · E.D. Michigan (1)
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari dismissed July 18, 1978, under this Court’s Rule 60.