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.
21 California opinions name it 3 courts 1887–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1975The Supreme Court, in the process of reversing the convictions on the authority of Williams , reasoned as follows at page 356: “The existence of the privilege of nondisclosure depends on the ‘materiality of the informer’s identity to the defense.’ (People v. Williams, 51 Cal.2d 355 , 359 . . . .) Here defendant denied having sold narcotics and denied ever having seen Officer Anderson before the trial; the sole defense was mistaken identity. 1959The existence of the privilege of nondisclosure depends on the “materiality of the informer’s identity to the defense.” (People v. Williams, 51 Cal.2d 355, 359 [ 333 P.2d 19 ].) Here defendant denied having sold narcotics and denied ever having seen Officer Anderson before the trial; the sole defense was mistaken identity. | 2 | 3 |
Roviaro v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1959Nondisclosure would deprive him of a fair trial.” As was said in People v. Williams, 51 Cal.2d 355, 358 [ 333 P.2d 19 ], the existence of the privilege of nondisclosure depends on the “materiality of the informer’s identity to the defense.” = Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States in a narcotic case (Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 62 [ 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 ] had this to say: “The problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s right to prepare his defense.” We are satisfied that in the instant 1959Nondisclosure would deprive him of a fair trial.” As was said in People v. Williams, 51 Cal.2d 355, 358 [ 333 P.2d 19 ], the existence of the privilege of nondisclosure depends on the “materiality of the informer’s identity to the defense.” = Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States in a narcotic case (Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 62 [ 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 ] had this to say: “The problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s right to prepare his defense.” We are satisfied that in the instant | 1 | 2 |
Lucido v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2026“The identical issue requirement ‘addresses whether “identical factual allegations” are at stake in the two proceedings.’ ” (Ayala v. Dawson (2019) 13 Cal.App.5th 1319, 1327 ; see Lucido, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 342 .) “[I]n determining whether the identity requirement is satisfied, courts must be mindful of the need to distinguish ‘issues’ from ‘legal theories.’ ” (Wimsatt v. Beverly Hills Weight etc. Internat., Inc. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1517 .) Issue preclusion may bar subsequent litigation on the same set of facts even though different causes of action are involved. 2026“The identical issue requirement ‘addresses whether “identical factual allegations” are at stake in the two proceedings.’ ” (Ayala v. Dawson (2019) 13 Cal.App.5th 1319, 1327 ; see Lucido, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 342 .) “[I]n determining whether the identity requirement is satisfied, courts must be mindful of the need to distinguish ‘issues’ from ‘legal theories.’ ” (Wimsatt v. Beverly Hills Weight etc. Internat., Inc. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1517 .) Issue preclusion may bar subsequent litigation on the same set of facts even though different causes of action are involved. | 1 | 1 |
Wimsatt v. Beverly Hills Weight Loss Clinics International, Inc.green1 sentence2026“The identical issue requirement ‘addresses whether “identical factual allegations” are at stake in the two proceedings.’ ” (Ayala v. Dawson (2019) 13 Cal.App.5th 1319, 1327 ; see Lucido, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 342 .) “[I]n determining whether the identity requirement is satisfied, courts must be mindful of the need to distinguish ‘issues’ from ‘legal theories.’ ” (Wimsatt v. Beverly Hills Weight etc. Internat., Inc. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1517 .) Issue preclusion may bar subsequent litigation on the same set of facts even though different causes of action are involved. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Leongreen2 sentences2025(Larkins, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 1068 ; see Leon, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 601 [“because the surveillance video was played for the jury, jurors could make up their own minds about whether the person shown was defendant”].) Indeed, this is partly the relief Pressley requested in his motion in limine: “Let the jury look at the same evidence that Detective Paulino looked at . . . and . . . reach their own conclusions.” The jury also saw photos and video of Russell, which constitute substantial evidence because the thrust of Pressley’s identity defense was that Russell — the registered owner 2025(Larkins, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 1068 ; see Leon, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 601 [“because the surveillance video was played for the jury, jurors could make up their own minds about whether the person shown was defendant”].) Indeed, this is partly the relief Pressley requested in his motion in limine: “Let the jury look at the same evidence that Detective Paulino looked at . . . and . . . reach their own conclusions.” The jury also saw photos and video of Russell, which constitute substantial evidence because the thrust of Pressley’s identity defense was that Russell — the registered owner | 1 | 1 |
Bleeck v. State Board of Optometrygreen2 sentences1995(Bleeck v. State Board of Optometry (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 415, 428 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 860 ] [refusing to accord collateral estoppel effect to previous mandate proceeding involving licensing of optometrist’s branch office bottomed on the absence of a “sale” of office where current proceeding involved issue of “abandonment” of other offices].) Of course, in determining whether the identity requirement is satisfied, courts must be mindful of the need to distinguish “issues” from “legal theories.” (See Pacific Mutual Life Ins. 1995(Bleeck v. State Board of Optometry (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 415, 428 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 860 ] [refusing to accord collateral estoppel effect to previous mandate proceeding involving licensing of optometrist’s branch office bottomed on the absence of a “sale” of office where current proceeding involved issue of “abandonment” of other offices].) Of course, in determining whether the identity requirement is satisfied, courts must be mindful of the need to distinguish “issues” from “legal theories.” (See Pacific Mutual Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. McConnellgreen2 sentences1995Co. v. McConnell (1955) 44 Cal.2d 715, 724-725 [ 285 P.2d 636 ] [“. . . the prior determination of an issue is conclusive in a subsequent suit between the same parties as to that issue and every matter which might have been urged to sustain or defeat its determination.”]; Bleeck v. State Board of Optometry, supra, 18 Cal.App.3d at p. 429 [collateral estoppel binding on all matters which were raised or might have been raised].) The distinction, however, is not always easy. 1995Co. v. McConnell (1955) 44 Cal.2d 715, 724-725 [ 285 P.2d 636 ] [“. . . the prior determination of an issue is conclusive in a subsequent suit between the same parties as to that issue and every matter which might have been urged to sustain or defeat its determination.”]; Bleeck v. State Board of Optometry, supra, 18 Cal.App.3d at p. 429 [collateral estoppel binding on all matters which were raised or might have been raised].) The distinction, however, is not always easy. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1982(People v. Robles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 205, 215 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 466 P.2d 710 ]; People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ].)” The only attorney-client differences shown in the record, however, were over whether to present the identity defense demanded by appellant or the diminished capacity defense that counsel preferred. 1982(People v. Robles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 205, 215 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 466 P.2d 710 ]; People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ].)” The only attorney-client differences shown in the record, however, were over whether to present the identity defense demanded by appellant or the diminished capacity defense that counsel preferred. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Roblesgreen2 sentences1982(People v. Robles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 205, 215 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 466 P.2d 710 ]; People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ].)” The only attorney-client differences shown in the record, however, were over whether to present the identity defense demanded by appellant or the diminished capacity defense that counsel preferred. 1982(People v. Robles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 205, 215 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 466 P.2d 710 ]; People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ].)” The only attorney-client differences shown in the record, however, were over whether to present the identity defense demanded by appellant or the diminished capacity defense that counsel preferred. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kopackagreen2 sentences1962(State v. Smetana, 131 Ohio St. 329 [ 2 N.E.2d 778 ]; State v. Thayer, 124 Ohio St. 1, 4 [ 176 N.E. 656 , 75 A.L.R. 48 ]; People v. Shulenberg, 279 App.Div. 1115 [ 112 N.Y.S.2d 374, 375 ]; People v. Rakiec, 260 App.Div. 452 [ 23 N.Y.S.2d 607, 612-613 ]; People v. Schade, 161 Misc. 212 [ 292 N.Y.S. 612, 615-619 ]; State v. Kopacka, 261 Wis. 70, 75-76 [ 51 N.W.2d 495 , 30 A.L.R.2d 476 ].) The identity of the defense witnesses and the existence of any reports or X-rays the defense offers in evidence will necessarily be revealed at the trial. 1962(State v. Smetana, 131 Ohio St. 329 [ 2 N.E.2d 778 ]; State v. Thayer, 124 Ohio St. 1, 4 [ 176 N.E. 656 , 75 A.L.R. 48 ]; People v. Shulenberg, 279 App.Div. 1115 [ 112 N.Y.S.2d 374, 375 ]; People v. Rakiec, 260 App.Div. 452 [ 23 N.Y.S.2d 607, 612-613 ]; People v. Schade, 161 Misc. 212 [ 292 N.Y.S. 612, 615-619 ]; State v. Kopacka, 261 Wis. 70, 75-76 [ 51 N.W.2d 495 , 30 A.L.R.2d 476 ].) The identity of the defense witnesses and the existence of any reports or X-rays the defense offers in evidence will necessarily be revealed at the trial. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thayergreen2 sentences1962(State v. Smetana, 131 Ohio St. 329 [ 2 N.E.2d 778 ]; State v. Thayer, 124 Ohio St. 1, 4 [ 176 N.E. 656 , 75 A.L.R. 48 ]; People v. Shulenberg, 279 App.Div. 1115 [ 112 N.Y.S.2d 374, 375 ]; People v. Rakiec, 260 App.Div. 452 [ 23 N.Y.S.2d 607, 612-613 ]; People v. Schade, 161 Misc. 212 [ 292 N.Y.S. 612, 615-619 ]; State v. Kopacka, 261 Wis. 70, 75-76 [ 51 N.W.2d 495 , 30 A.L.R.2d 476 ].) The identity of the defense witnesses and the existence of any reports or X-rays the defense offers in evidence will necessarily be revealed at the trial. 1962(State v. Smetana, 131 Ohio St. 329 [ 2 N.E.2d 778 ]; State v. Thayer, 124 Ohio St. 1, 4 [ 176 N.E. 656 , 75 A.L.R. 48 ]; People v. Shulenberg, 279 App.Div. 1115 [ 112 N.Y.S.2d 374, 375 ]; People v. Rakiec, 260 App.Div. 452 [ 23 N.Y.S.2d 607, 612-613 ]; People v. Schade, 161 Misc. 212 [ 292 N.Y.S. 612, 615-619 ]; State v. Kopacka, 261 Wis. 70, 75-76 [ 51 N.W.2d 495 , 30 A.L.R.2d 476 ].) The identity of the defense witnesses and the existence of any reports or X-rays the defense offers in evidence will necessarily be revealed at the trial. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Conforti
green
2 sentences1958(See United States v. Conforti, supra, 200 F.2d 365, 367-369 .) [6] Also, where the informer did nothing more than give the police information leading to a search and seizure made without a warrant and alleged to be unlawful, courts have compelled disclosure if the informer's communication was the only justification for the action of the police. ( Wilson v. United States, supra, 59 F.2d 390 , 391 et seq.; United States v. Blich, supra, 45 F.2d 627, 629 .) In that type of case the identity of the informer is material because, unless he was a person upon whose credibility the police were entitle 1958(See United States v. Conforti, supra, 200 F.2d 365, 367-369 .) [6] Also, where the informer did nothing more than give the police information leading to a search and seizure made without a warrant and alleged to be unlawful, courts have compelled disclosure if the informer's communication was the only justification for the action of the police. ( Wilson v. United States, supra, 59 F.2d 390 , 391 et seq.; United States v. Blich, supra, 45 F.2d 627, 629 .) In that type of case the identity of the informer is material because, unless he was a person upon whose credibility the police were entitle | 2 | 1958–1958 |
Narberto Angelo Portomene v. United States
green
2 sentences1958(E.g., Portomene v. United States, supra, 221 F.2d 582, 584 ; People v. Lawrence, supra, 149 Cal.App.2d 435, 450-452 .) However, the limitation is not confined to such cases, since it is based upon materiality of the informer’s identity to the defense. 1958(E.g., Portomene v. United States, supra, 221 F.2d 582, 584 ; People v. Lawrence, supra, 149 Cal. App.2d 435, 450-452 .) However, the limitation is not confined to such cases, since it is based upon materiality of the informer's identity to the defense. [5] Clearly, for example, an informer who took no part in the crime but was an eyewitness may be in a position to give highly significant testimony. | 2 | 1958–1958 |
People v. Lawrence
green
2 sentences1958(E.g., Portomene v. United States, supra, 221 F.2d 582, 584 ; People v. Lawrence, supra, 149 Cal.App.2d 435, 450-452 .) However, the limitation is not confined to such cases, since it is based upon materiality of the informer’s identity to the defense. 1958(E.g., Portomene v. United States, supra, 221 F.2d 582, 584 ; People v. Lawrence, supra, 149 Cal. App.2d 435, 450-452 .) However, the limitation is not confined to such cases, since it is based upon materiality of the informer's identity to the defense. [5] Clearly, for example, an informer who took no part in the crime but was an eyewitness may be in a position to give highly significant testimony. | 2 | 1958–1958 |
Ayala v. Dawson
green
1 sentence2026“The identical issue requirement ‘addresses whether “identical factual allegations” are at stake in the two proceedings.’ ” (Ayala v. Dawson (2019) 13 Cal.App.5th 1319, 1327 ; see Lucido, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 342 .) “[I]n determining whether the identity requirement is satisfied, courts must be mindful of the need to distinguish ‘issues’ from ‘legal theories.’ ” (Wimsatt v. Beverly Hills Weight etc. Internat., Inc. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1517 .) Issue preclusion may bar subsequent litigation on the same set of facts even though different causes of action are involved. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Evans v. Celotex Corp.
green
1 sentence2026(Evans v. Celotex Corp. (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 741, 746 .) Identity of legal theories or causes of action is not required; rather, issue preclusion bars relitigation of the same issues. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Larkins
green
1 sentence2025(Larkins, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 1068 ; see Leon, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 601 [“because the surveillance video was played for the jury, jurors could make up their own minds about whether the person shown was defendant”].) Indeed, this is partly the relief Pressley requested in his motion in limine: “Let the jury look at the same evidence that Detective Paulino looked at . . . and . . . reach their own conclusions.” The jury also saw photos and video of Russell, which constitute substantial evidence because the thrust of Pressley’s identity defense was that Russell — the registered owner | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Romero
green
1 sentence2022(Romero, supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at p. 779 .) Second, the juror in Romero was more equivocal in her ability to be fair and impartial than Juror No. 4. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Woo v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2020(Woo, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 177 .) “[U]nreasonable delay in filing an amended pleading after discovering a Doe defendant’s identity may bar a plaintiff from using the fictitious name device. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Barrows v. American Motors Corp.
green
1 sentence2009Barrows v. American Motors [Corp.] (1983) 144 Cal.App.3rd 1, 9 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 380 ].” A.N. filed a timely notice of appeal. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
United States v. Gary Barrett Green
green
1 sentence1991(People v. Montgomery, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 1019 .) The policy behind the location privilege is analogous to the informant’s identity privilege. 4 As stated in the often cited United States v. Green, supra, 670 F.2d at page 1155 , “Like confidential informants, hidden observation posts may often prove to be useful law enforcement tools, so long as they remain secret. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Montgomery
green
1 sentence1991(People v. Montgomery, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 1019 .) The policy behind the location privilege is analogous to the informant’s identity privilege. 4 As stated in the often cited United States v. Green, supra, 670 F.2d at page 1155 , “Like confidential informants, hidden observation posts may often prove to be useful law enforcement tools, so long as they remain secret. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
United States v. Victor Sherman
green
1 sentence1980(United States v. Sherman (9th Cir. 1980) 627 F.2d 189 ; Zwerling Federal Grand Juries and Attorney Independence and the Attorney-client Privilege (1976) 27 Hastings L.J. 1263 , 1286-1290.) These rules are subject to a significant exception. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Honore v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1970The court therefore concluded that disclosure of the informant’s identity or dismissal of the action was required under the rule espoused in People v. Garcia (1967) 67 Cal.2d 830 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 110 , 434 P.2d 366 ], and Honore v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 162 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 233 , 449 P.2d 169 ]. *12 The Garcia and Honoré cases require disclosure of an informant’s identity where the defense demonstrates a reasonable possibility that the informant would be a material witness on the issue of guilt and could give evidence which might result in the defendant’s exoneration. 1970The court therefore concluded that disclosure of the informant’s identity or dismissal of the action was required under the rule espoused in People v. Garcia (1967) 67 Cal.2d 830 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 110 , 434 P.2d 366 ], and Honore v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 162 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 233 , 449 P.2d 169 ]. *12 The Garcia and Honoré cases require disclosure of an informant’s identity where the defense demonstrates a reasonable possibility that the informant would be a material witness on the issue of guilt and could give evidence which might result in the defendant’s exoneration. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
People v. Garcia
green
2 sentences1970The court therefore concluded that disclosure of the informant’s identity or dismissal of the action was required under the rule espoused in People v. Garcia (1967) 67 Cal.2d 830 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 110 , 434 P.2d 366 ], and Honore v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 162 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 233 , 449 P.2d 169 ]. *12 The Garcia and Honoré cases require disclosure of an informant’s identity where the defense demonstrates a reasonable possibility that the informant would be a material witness on the issue of guilt and could give evidence which might result in the defendant’s exoneration. 1970The court therefore concluded that disclosure of the informant’s identity or dismissal of the action was required under the rule espoused in People v. Garcia (1967) 67 Cal.2d 830 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 110 , 434 P.2d 366 ], and Honore v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 162 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 233 , 449 P.2d 169 ]. *12 The Garcia and Honoré cases require disclosure of an informant’s identity where the defense demonstrates a reasonable possibility that the informant would be a material witness on the issue of guilt and could give evidence which might result in the defendant’s exoneration. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Conrad v. West
green
2 sentences1967(Conrad v. West, 98 Cal.App.2d 116 [ 219 P.2d 477 ].) The civil conspiracy counts should be tried with the contract claims because they are so closely related; the rules on staying an action would be almost meaningless if the plaintiff could automatically avoid a stay by juggling the pleadings and amending a particular claim in the jurisdiction where he did not wish to have the dispute tried. 1967(Conrad v. West, 98 Cal.App.2d 116 [ 219 P.2d 477 ].) The civil conspiracy counts should be tried with the contract claims because they are so closely related; the rules on staying an action would be almost meaningless if the plaintiff could automatically avoid a stay by juggling the pleadings and amending a particular claim in the jurisdiction where he did not wish to have the dispute tried. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
People v. Rakiec
green
2 sentences1962(State v. Smetana, 131 Ohio St. 329 [ 2 N.E.2d 778 ]; State v. Thayer, 124 Ohio St. 1, 4 [ 176 N.E. 656 , 75 A.L.R. 48 ]; People v. Shulenberg, 279 App.Div. 1115 [ 112 N.Y.S.2d 374, 375 ]; People v. Rakiec, 260 App.Div. 452 [ 23 N.Y.S.2d 607, 612-613 ]; People v. Schade, 161 Misc. 212 [ 292 N.Y.S. 612, 615-619 ]; State v. Kopacka, 261 Wis. 70, 75-76 [ 51 N.W.2d 495 , 30 A.L.R.2d 476 ].) The identity of the defense witnesses and the existence of any reports or X-rays the defense offers in evidence will necessarily be revealed at the trial. 1962(State v. Smetana, 131 Ohio St. 329 [ 2 N.E.2d 778 ]; State v. Thayer, 124 Ohio St. 1, 4 [ 176 N.E. 656 , 75 A.L.R. 48 ]; People v. Shulenberg, 279 App.Div. 1115 [ 112 N.Y.S.2d 374, 375 ]; People v. Rakiec, 260 App.Div. 452 [ 23 N.Y.S.2d 607, 612-613 ]; People v. Schade, 161 Misc. 212 [ 292 N.Y.S. 612, 615-619 ]; State v. Kopacka, 261 Wis. 70, 75-76 [ 51 N.W.2d 495 , 30 A.L.R.2d 476 ].) The identity of the defense witnesses and the existence of any reports or X-rays the defense offers in evidence will necessarily be revealed at the trial. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
People v. Shulenberg
green
2 sentences1962(State v. Smetana, 131 Ohio St. 329 [ 2 N.E.2d 778 ]; State v. Thayer, 124 Ohio St. 1, 4 [ 176 N.E. 656 , 75 A.L.R. 48 ]; People v. Shulenberg, 279 App.Div. 1115 [ 112 N.Y.S.2d 374, 375 ]; People v. Rakiec, 260 App.Div. 452 [ 23 N.Y.S.2d 607, 612-613 ]; People v. Schade, 161 Misc. 212 [ 292 N.Y.S. 612, 615-619 ]; State v. Kopacka, 261 Wis. 70, 75-76 [ 51 N.W.2d 495 , 30 A.L.R.2d 476 ].) The identity of the defense witnesses and the existence of any reports or X-rays the defense offers in evidence will necessarily be revealed at the trial. 1962(State v. Smetana, 131 Ohio St. 329 [ 2 N.E.2d 778 ]; State v. Thayer, 124 Ohio St. 1, 4 [ 176 N.E. 656 , 75 A.L.R. 48 ]; People v. Shulenberg, 279 App.Div. 1115 [ 112 N.Y.S.2d 374, 375 ]; People v. Rakiec, 260 App.Div. 452 [ 23 N.Y.S.2d 607, 612-613 ]; People v. Schade, 161 Misc. 212 [ 292 N.Y.S. 612, 615-619 ]; State v. Kopacka, 261 Wis. 70, 75-76 [ 51 N.W.2d 495 , 30 A.L.R.2d 476 ].) The identity of the defense witnesses and the existence of any reports or X-rays the defense offers in evidence will necessarily be revealed at the trial. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
State v. Smetana
neutral
2 sentences1962(State v. Smetana, 131 Ohio St. 329 [ 2 N.E.2d 778 ]; State v. Thayer, 124 Ohio St. 1, 4 [ 176 N.E. 656 , 75 A.L.R. 48 ]; People v. Shulenberg, 279 App.Div. 1115 [ 112 N.Y.S.2d 374, 375 ]; People v. Rakiec, 260 App.Div. 452 [ 23 N.Y.S.2d 607, 612-613 ]; People v. Schade, 161 Misc. 212 [ 292 N.Y.S. 612, 615-619 ]; State v. Kopacka, 261 Wis. 70, 75-76 [ 51 N.W.2d 495 , 30 A.L.R.2d 476 ].) The identity of the defense witnesses and the existence of any reports or X-rays the defense offers in evidence will necessarily be revealed at the trial. 1962(State v. Smetana, 131 Ohio St. 329 [ 2 N.E.2d 778 ]; State v. Thayer, 124 Ohio St. 1, 4 [ 176 N.E. 656 , 75 A.L.R. 48 ]; People v. Shulenberg, 279 App.Div. 1115 [ 112 N.Y.S.2d 374, 375 ]; People v. Rakiec, 260 App.Div. 452 [ 23 N.Y.S.2d 607, 612-613 ]; People v. Schade, 161 Misc. 212 [ 292 N.Y.S. 612, 615-619 ]; State v. Kopacka, 261 Wis. 70, 75-76 [ 51 N.W.2d 495 , 30 A.L.R.2d 476 ].) The identity of the defense witnesses and the existence of any reports or X-rays the defense offers in evidence will necessarily be revealed at the trial. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
People v. Schade
green
2 sentences1962(State v. Smetana, 131 Ohio St. 329 [ 2 N.E.2d 778 ]; State v. Thayer, 124 Ohio St. 1, 4 [ 176 N.E. 656 , 75 A.L.R. 48 ]; People v. Shulenberg, 279 App.Div. 1115 [ 112 N.Y.S.2d 374, 375 ]; People v. Rakiec, 260 App.Div. 452 [ 23 N.Y.S.2d 607, 612-613 ]; People v. Schade, 161 Misc. 212 [ 292 N.Y.S. 612, 615-619 ]; State v. Kopacka, 261 Wis. 70, 75-76 [ 51 N.W.2d 495 , 30 A.L.R.2d 476 ].) The identity of the defense witnesses and the existence of any reports or X-rays the defense offers in evidence will necessarily be revealed at the trial. 1962(State v. Smetana, 131 Ohio St. 329 [ 2 N.E.2d 778 ]; State v. Thayer, 124 Ohio St. 1, 4 [ 176 N.E. 656 , 75 A.L.R. 48 ]; People v. Shulenberg, 279 App.Div. 1115 [ 112 N.Y.S.2d 374, 375 ]; People v. Rakiec, 260 App.Div. 452 [ 23 N.Y.S.2d 607, 612-613 ]; People v. Schade, 161 Misc. 212 [ 292 N.Y.S. 612, 615-619 ]; State v. Kopacka, 261 Wis. 70, 75-76 [ 51 N.W.2d 495 , 30 A.L.R.2d 476 ].) The identity of the defense witnesses and the existence of any reports or X-rays the defense offers in evidence will necessarily be revealed at the trial. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| United States v. Blich green | 1 | 1958–1958 |
| Wilson v. United States green | 1 | 1958–1958 |
| Third Street Improvement Co. v. McLelland neutral | 1 | 1915–1915 |
| Norton v. Bassett green | 1 | 1915–1915 |
| Sweetzer, Pembroke & Co. v. H. B. Claflin & Co. green | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| Peden's Administrator v. King neutral | 1 | 1887–1887 |
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.