Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1985–1993 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Snyder v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences1993Second, once a witness is shown to be unavailable, “the Clause countenances only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that ‘there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule.’ ” Id., at 65 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 , quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 107 , 54 S.Ct. 330, 333 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). 1993Second, once a witness is shown to be unavailable, “the Clause countenances only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that ‘there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule.’ ” Id., at 65 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 , quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 107 , 54 S.Ct. 330, 333 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). | 5 | 1985–1993 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences1993Second, once a witness is shown to be unavailable, “the Clause countenances only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that ‘there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule.’ ” Id., at 65 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 , quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 107 , 54 S.Ct. 330, 333 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). 1993Second, once a witness is shown to be unavailable, “the Clause countenances only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that ‘there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule.’ ” Id., at 65 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 , quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 107 , 54 S.Ct. 330, 333 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). | 3 | 1985–1993 |
Commonwealth v. Kravontka
green
2 sentences1993Thus, in situations where the "witness has been shown to be unavailable, the admission of hearsay is limited to situations where the declaration is inherently trustworthy, bearing adequate “indicia of reliability.” Commonwealth v. Kravontka, 384 Pa.Super. 346 , 558 A.2d 865 (1989); Ohio v. Roberts, supra, at 66 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 . 1993Thus, in situations where the "witness has been shown to be unavailable, the admission of hearsay is limited to situations where the declaration is inherently trustworthy, bearing adequate “indicia of reliability.” Commonwealth v. Kravontka, 384 Pa.Super. 346 , 558 A.2d 865 (1989); Ohio v. Roberts, supra, at 66 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Mancusi v. Stubbs
green
2 sentences1990The principle recently was formulated in Mancusi v. Stubbs [ 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972) ]: “The focus of the Court’s concern has been to insure that there ‘are indicia of reliability which have been widely viewed as determinative of whether a statement may be placed before the jury though there is no confrontation of the declarant,’ Dutton v. Evans, supra, [ 400 U.S. 74 ] at 89, [ 91 S.Ct. 210, 220 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 ] and to ‘afford the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement,’ California v. Green, supra [ 399 U.S. 149 ] at 16 1990The principle recently was formulated in Mancusi v. Stubbs [ 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972) ]: “The focus of the Court’s concern has been to insure that there ‘are indicia of reliability which have been widely viewed as determinative of whether a statement may be placed before the jury though there is no confrontation of the declarant,’ Dutton v. Evans, supra, [ 400 U.S. 74 ] at 89, [ 91 S.Ct. 210, 220 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 ] and to ‘afford the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement,’ California v. Green, supra [ 399 U.S. 149 ] at 16 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
California v. Green
red
2 sentences1990The principle recently was formulated in Mancusi v. Stubbs [ 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972) ]: “The focus of the Court’s concern has been to insure that there ‘are indicia of reliability which have been widely viewed as determinative of whether a statement may be placed before the jury though there is no confrontation of the declarant,’ Dutton v. Evans, supra, [ 400 U.S. 74 ] at 89, [ 91 S.Ct. 210, 220 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 ] and to ‘afford the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement,’ California v. Green, supra [ 399 U.S. 149 ] at 16 1990The principle recently was formulated in Mancusi v. Stubbs [ 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972) ]: “The focus of the Court’s concern has been to insure that there ‘are indicia of reliability which have been widely viewed as determinative of whether a statement may be placed before the jury though there is no confrontation of the declarant,’ Dutton v. Evans, supra, [ 400 U.S. 74 ] at 89, [ 91 S.Ct. 210, 220 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 ] and to ‘afford the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement,’ California v. Green, supra [ 399 U.S. 149 ] at 16 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Dutton v. Evans
green
2 sentences1990The principle recently was formulated in Mancusi v. Stubbs [ 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972) ]: “The focus of the Court’s concern has been to insure that there ‘are indicia of reliability which have been widely viewed as determinative of whether a statement may be placed before the jury though there is no confrontation of the declarant,’ Dutton v. Evans, supra, [ 400 U.S. 74 ] at 89, [ 91 S.Ct. 210, 220 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 ] and to ‘afford the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement,’ California v. Green, supra [ 399 U.S. 149 ] at 16 1990The principle recently was formulated in Mancusi v. Stubbs [ 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972) ]: “The focus of the Court’s concern has been to insure that there ‘are indicia of reliability which have been widely viewed as determinative of whether a statement may be placed before the jury though there is no confrontation of the declarant,’ Dutton v. Evans, supra, [ 400 U.S. 74 ] at 89, [ 91 S.Ct. 210, 220 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 ] and to ‘afford the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement,’ California v. Green, supra [ 399 U.S. 149 ] at 16 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.