green
Positive treatment
5.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Morrison
In contrast, an inquiry is ministerial if it is “wholly unrelated to the substantive legal or factual issues of the trial” (People v Harris, 76 NY2d 810, 812 [1990]; see People v Hameed, 88 NY2d 232, 241 [1996], cert denied 519 US 1065 [1997]; People v Gruyair, 75 AD3d 401, 402-403 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 852 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
MORRISON, WILLIAM, PEOPLE v
In contrast, an inquiry is ministerial if it is “wholly unrelated to the substantive legal or factual issues of the trial” (People v Harris, 76 NY2d 810, 812 ; see People v Hameed, 88 NY2d 232, 241 , cert -4- 1258 KA 09-00310 denied 519 US 1065 ; People v Gruyair, 75 AD3d 401, 402-403 , lv denied 15 NY3d 852 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Morrison
In contrast, an inquiry is ministerial if it is “wholly unrelated to the substantive legal or factual issues of the trial” (People v Harris, 76 NY2d 810, 812 [1990]; see People v Hameed, 88 NY2d 232, 241 [1996], cert denied 519 US 1065 [1997]; People v Gruyair, 75 AD3d 401, 402-403 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 852 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ferry
See State v. Wilson, 323 Or 498, 512 , 918 P2d 826 (1996), cert den, 519 US 1065 , 117 S Ct 704 , 136 L Ed 625 (1997) (the defendant’s objection to the admission of a hearsay statement under OEC 804(3)(c)— which establishes an exception to the hearsay rule for statements against the declarant’s interest when the declarant is unavailable—on the ground that the statement did not qualify as a statement against the declarant’s interest did not preserve the defendant’s appellate argument that the statement was inadmissible because the declarant was not “unavailable as a witness,” OE…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Trax
See generally State v. Wilson, 323 Or 498, 510-11 , 918 P2d 826 (1996), cert den, 519 US 1065 (1997) (in reviewing trial court’s preliminary factual finding on evidentiary issue, court drew from record all reasonable inferences that trial court could have made supporting its ruling). 4 Defendants simultaneously filed motions to controvert, challenging the reliability of the confidential informant.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The People v. Kenneth Slade , The People v. Kieth Brooks, The People v. Charo N. Allen
Similarly, in People v Leto the indictment was declared void ab initio where defendant’s constitutional privilege against self- incrimination was violated at the grand jury stage (see 70 Misc 2d 218, 220 [Albany County Ct 1972], affd 41 AD2d 877 [3d Dept 1973]; compare People v Mayes, 19 Misc 3d 48, 51 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 936 [2008], quoting People v Hameed, 88 NY2d 232, 239 [1996], cert denied 519 US 1065 [1997] [“consideration of hearsay allegations for the purpose of ascertaining the sufficiency of a pleading would in no event constitute a v…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Iseli
See also State v. Wilson, 323 Or 498, 510-11 , 918 P2d 826 (1996), cert den, 519 US 1065 (1997) (to similar effect, citing Nielsen).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Frost
A defendant’s right to be present at trial under the Confrontation Clause attaches when “witnesses or evidence against him are being presented to the trier of fact” (People v Sprowal, 84 NY2d 113, 117 [1994], citing Kentucky v Stincer, 482 US 730, 739 [1987]; see also People v Hameed, 88 NY2d 232, 239 [1996], cert denied 519 US 1065 [1997]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robinson
v.
Nevada
v.
Nevada
No. 96-6607.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 6, 1997.
Published
Sup. Ct. Nev. Certio-rari denied.