5 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1917–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bourdeaugreen2 sentences2010Our perspective is limited to analyzing words printed on a black and white record.”); State v. Bourdeau, 448 A.2d 1247, 1249 (R.I.1982) (stating that, unless the trial justice acted “arbitrarily or capriciously in assessing the credibility of the witnesses at the hearing,” such findings of credibility will be given deference). 1996State v. Bourdeau, 448 A.2d 1247, 1249 (R.I.1982). | 2 | 2 |
Raheb v. Lemenskigreen2 sentences1982State v. Studman, R.I., 402 A.2d at 1187 ; see Raheb v. Lemenski, 115 R.I. 576 , 350 A.2d 397 (1976). 1982State v. Studman, R.I., 402 A.2d at 1187 ; see Raheb v. Lemenski, 115 R.I. 576 , 350 A.2d 397 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Morel
green
1 sentence2006While we recognize that this Court has previously held that the results of DNA analysis should only be presented to the jury “provided a defendant is afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the experts, to question the validity of their conclusions, and to disclose the potential weaknesses of the proffered DNA analy-ses,” Morel, 676 A.2d at 1356 , it appears that in the present case- defendant was afforded each of those opportunities. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Studman
green
1 sentence1982State v. Studman, R.I., 402 A.2d at 1187 ; see Raheb v. Lemenski, 115 R.I. 576 , 350 A.2d 397 (1976). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Donaldson v. Winningham
neutral
1 sentence1917We believe our statute contemplates the giving of a notice which shall fully apprise the attorney for the opposite party as to the particular witnesses to be examined, to the end that he may determine whether it is necessary for him to be present at such examination, or to employ local counsel for that purpose, and to afford him opportunity for preparation to subject the witnesses to the test cross-examination.” *574 In Donaldson v. Winningham, 54 Wash. 19 , the court said: “The naming of the witness in the notice, if not within the letter, is within the spirit of the statute. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.