12 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1964–2016 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. Mastracchiogreen2 sentences1998See, e.g., State v. Pacheco, 481 A.2d 1009, 1027 (R.I.1984); State v. Mastracchio, 112 R.I. 487, 495 , 312 A.2d 190, 195 (1973). 1998See, e.g., State v. Pacheco, 481 A.2d 1009, 1027 (R.I.1984); State v. Mastracchio, 112 R.I. 487, 495 , 312 A.2d 190, 195 (1973). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bidogreen1 sentence2016We have said on numerous occasions that “a litigant cannot raise an objection or advance a new theory on appeal if it was not raised before the trial court.” State v. Bido, 941 A.2d 822, 829 (R.I. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Oliveiragreen1 sentence2014A trial justice, in considering a motion to pass a case,. “must determine whether the evidence would cause the jurors to be so inflamed as to make them unable to decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented.” State v. Oliveira, 882 A.2d 1097, 1127 (R.I.2005). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Riveragreen1 sentence2013“Inherent in a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to confront witnesses against him or her — found in both article 1, section 10, of the Rhode Island Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution — ‘is the fundamental right of the criminal defendant to cross-examine his or her accusers.’ ” State v. Rivera, 987 A.2d 887, 906 (R.I.2010) (quoting State v. Drew, 919 A.2d 397, 411 (R.I.2007)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Drewgreen1 sentence2013“Inherent in a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to confront witnesses against him or her — found in both article 1, section 10, of the Rhode Island Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution — ‘is the fundamental right of the criminal defendant to cross-examine his or her accusers.’ ” State v. Rivera, 987 A.2d 887, 906 (R.I.2010) (quoting State v. Drew, 919 A.2d 397, 411 (R.I.2007)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hazardgreen1 sentence2012In State v. Hazard, 785 A.2d 1111, 1115-16 (R.I.2001), we explained: “When a trial justice sustains an objection to a line of inquiry on cross-examination and opposing counsel fails to make an offer of proof, fails to request any voir dire of the witness, and fails to articulate any reason why the court should reconsider its ruling, then that party cannot, on appeal, question the trial justice’s ruling in sustaining the objection as reversible error.” Defense counsel in this case failed to comply with any one of these preservation mandates. | 1 | 1 |
Healey v. New England Newspapers, Inc.green1 sentence2002In Beattie we restated our rule that “a statement in the form of an opinion may be defamatory and therefore actionable if and only if ‘it implies the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion.’ ” Beattie, 746 A.2d at 721 (quoting Healey v. New England Newspapers, Inc., 555 A.2d 321, 324 (R.I.1989)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Medinagreen1 sentence2001State v. Medina, 747 A.2d 448, 450 (R.I.2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pachecogreen1 sentence1998See, e.g., State v. Pacheco, 481 A.2d 1009, 1027 (R.I.1984); State v. Mastracchio, 112 R.I. 487, 495 , 312 A.2d 190, 195 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Eckhartgreen2 sentences1984State v. Eckhart, 117 R.I. 431, 436 , 367 A.2d 1073, 1076 (1977); see also Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687 , 51 S.Ct. 218 , 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931); State v. Capone, 115 R.I. 426 , 347 A.2d 615 (1975). 1984State v. Eckhart, 117 R.I. 431, 436 , 367 A.2d 1073, 1076 (1977); see also Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687 , 51 S.Ct. 218 , 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931); State v. Capone, 115 R.I. 426 , 347 A.2d 615 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Alford v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1984State v. Eckhart, 117 R.I. 431, 436 , 367 A.2d 1073, 1076 (1977); see also Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687 , 51 S.Ct. 218 , 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931); State v. Capone, 115 R.I. 426 , 347 A.2d 615 (1975). 1984State v. Eckhart, 117 R.I. 431, 436 , 367 A.2d 1073, 1076 (1977); see also Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687 , 51 S.Ct. 218 , 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931); State v. Capone, 115 R.I. 426 , 347 A.2d 615 (1975). | 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. Gonsalves
green
2 sentences2016“The proper line of inquiry is whether the police reasonably believed, relying upon facts known by them at the time of arrest, that the warrantless intrusion was necessary to preserve life or avoid serious injury.” Gonsalves, 553 A.2d at 1075-76 . 2016“The proper line of inquiry is whether the police reasonably believed, relying upon facts known by them at the time of arrest, that the warrantless intrusion was necessary to preserve life or avoid serious injury.” Gonsalves, 553 A.2d at 1075-76 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Beattie v. Fleet National Bank
green
1 sentence2002In Beattie we restated our rule that “a statement in the form of an opinion may be defamatory and therefore actionable if and only if ‘it implies the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion.’ ” Beattie, 746 A.2d at 721 (quoting Healey v. New England Newspapers, Inc., 555 A.2d 321, 324 (R.I.1989)). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Capone
green
2 sentences1984State v. Eckhart, 117 R.I. 431, 436 , 367 A.2d 1073, 1076 (1977); see also Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687 , 51 S.Ct. 218 , 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931); State v. Capone, 115 R.I. 426 , 347 A.2d 615 (1975). 1984State v. Eckhart, 117 R.I. 431, 436 , 367 A.2d 1073, 1076 (1977); see also Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687 , 51 S.Ct. 218 , 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931); State v. Capone, 115 R.I. 426 , 347 A.2d 615 (1975). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Rowland's Administrator
green
2 sentences1964In Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Rowland’s Adm’r, 215 Ky. 663 , it was stated that where the court has ruled evidence admissible and proper exceptions have been reserved, further objection to the same line of interrogation is not required -to save the question for review. 1964In Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Rowland's Adm'r, 215 Ky. 663 , it was stated that where the court has ruled evidence admissible and proper exceptions have been reserved, further objection to the same line of interrogation is not required to save the question for review. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.