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.
17 Delaware opinions name it 4 courts 1973–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware 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 |
|---|---|---|
Valentin v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Analysis “When we review an alleged discovery violation, we must first determine whether a violation occurred.”56 “If we conclude that a discovery violation occurred, then we apply 54 Op. Br. at 15. 55 Id. at 16. 56 Valentin v. State, 74 A.3d 645 , 648–49 (Del. 2013) (stating also that, “[w]e review a trial judge’s interpretation of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to discovery de novo, and we review the trial judge’s application of those Rules under an abuse of discretion standard.”). 11 a three-factor test that considers ‘(1) the centrality of the error to the case; (2 2017In these situations, this Court i) reviews the Superior Court’s application of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure for an abuse of discretion, and, if the Rules were misapplied or an abuse of discretion occurred, ii) applies "a three-factor test that considers '(1) the centrality of the error to the case; (2) the closeness of the case; and (3) the steps taken to mitigate the results of the error.' ” Id. at 649 (quoting Oliver, 60 A.3d at 1096-97 ). | 1 | 3 |
Skinner v. Stategreen2 sentences1996When reviewing a disclosure violation, this Court applies a three-part test: “(1) the centrality of the error to the ease, (2) the closeness of the case, and (3) the steps taken by the court to mitigate the results of the error.” Skinner v. State, Del.Supr., 575 A.2d 1108, 1126 (1990). 1991That test “requires this Court to analyze (1) the centrality of the error to the case, (2) the closeness of the case, and (3) the steps taken by the court to mitigate the results of the error.” Skinner, 575 A.2d at 1126 . | 1 | 3 |
Oliver v. Stategreen2 sentences2017In these situations, this Court i) reviews the Superior Court’s application of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure for an abuse of discretion, and, if the Rules were misapplied or an abuse of discretion occurred, ii) applies "a three-factor test that considers '(1) the centrality of the error to the case; (2) the closeness of the case; and (3) the steps taken to mitigate the results of the error.' ” Id. at 649 (quoting Oliver, 60 A.3d at 1096-97 ). 2017"We will reverse a conviction on the basis of a discovery violation only if the defendant’s substantial rights are 'preju-dicially affected.’” Id. (quoting Oliver, 60 A.3d at 1097 ). 24 . | 1 | 2 |
Delaware Open MRI Radiology Associates, P.A. v. Kesslergreen1 sentence2019Open MRI Radiology Assocs., P.A. v. Kessler, 898 A.2d 290, 332 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Clawson v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See id. at 192 (finding that it was error to admit the results of the test when the State only observed the defendant for nineteen minutes when the manufacturer required a twenty minute observation period). . 2012Id. . | 1 | 1 |
Whalen v. Stategreen1 sentence1981See Whalen v. State, Del.Supr., 434 A.2d 1346 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Paivagreen1 sentence1977Compare United States v. Paiva, supra (defendant identified the specific bonds he had forged); and People v. Prado, 81 Misc.2d 710 , 365 N.Y.S.2d 943 (1975) (defendant stipulated that if he passed polygraph test he would be released on his own recognizance, but if he failed the results of the test would be admissible in court). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ruthardt
green
1 sentence2014The Court is not considering the results of the HGN test, because Corp. Hazzard did not testify that she has the necessary certifications to allow the results of the test to come into evidence pursuant to State v. Ruthardt, 680 A.2d 349 . 355 (Del. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Lewis v. State
green
1 sentence1998Id. at 1355-56 Thus, Lewis turns on the issue of the timing of alcohol consumption, not the timing of the BAC test. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Santiago v. State
green
1 sentence1993Most recently, we stated that for an expert to testify as to his or her opinion based upon the results of a test he or she performed, the expert must establish that the test is “reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.” Santiago, 510 A.2d at 490 (citing D.R.E. 703). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Slaughter v. State
green
1 sentence1993The State relies on Coxe v. State, Del.Supr., 281 A.2d 606 (1971), Slaughter v. State, Del.Supr., 322 A.2d 15 (1974) and other cases. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Coxe v. State
green
1 sentence1993The State relies on Coxe v. State, Del.Supr., 281 A.2d 606 (1971), Slaughter v. State, Del.Supr., 322 A.2d 15 (1974) and other cases. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Hughes v. State
green
1 sentence1990Id. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Prado
neutral
2 sentences1977Compare United States v. Paiva, supra (defendant identified the specific bonds he had forged); and People v. Prado, 81 Misc.2d 710 , 365 N.Y.S.2d 943 (1975) (defendant stipulated that if he passed polygraph test he would be released on his own recognizance, but if he failed the results of the test would be admissible in court). 1977Compare United States v. Paiva, supra (defendant identified the specific bonds he had forged); and People v. Prado, 81 Misc.2d 710 , 365 N.Y.S.2d 943 (1975) (defendant stipulated that if he passed polygraph test he would be released on his own recognizance, but if he failed the results of the test would be admissible in court). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences1975The State contends that is especially so based on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), by which authority the State alleges they could, after an arrest, take a blood sample from the Defendant over his objection with the results of such test being admissible. 1975The State contends that is especially so based on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), by which authority the State alleges they could, after an arrest, take a blood sample from the Defendant over his objection with the results of such test being admissible. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Wolf
green
1 sentence1973The State, relying upon State v. Wolf, 3 Storey 88 , 164 A.2d 865 (1960), suggests that the policeman had a qualified right to perform the instant search of the appellant’s body, subject only to constitutional restraints. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.