11 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Franks v. Delawaregreen2 sentences2025An application for an arrest warrant is presumptively valid; however, a defendant “may be able to rebut this presumption and challenge the veracity of the warrant application at a pretrial hearing. * * * Such a hearing is eponymously called a Franks hearing.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).5 This Court has made it clear that a defendant is “entitled to a hearing to challenge the veracity of factual statements contained in an affidavit when [the defendant] make[s] a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement [made] knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for 2022Defendants are entitled to a hearing to challenge the veracity of factual statements contained in an affidavit when they make “a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause[.]” Franks, - 23 - 438 U.S. at 155-56 ; see also State v. Patino, 93 A.3d 40, 59 (R.I. 2014). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bettencourtgreen2 sentences1982See State v. Bet-tencourt, 112 R.I. 706 , 315 A.2d 53 (1974); State v. Plante, 109 R.I. 371 , 285 A.2d 395 (1972). 1982See State v. Bet-tencourt, 112 R.I. 706 , 315 A.2d 53 (1974); State v. Plante, 109 R.I. 371 , 285 A.2d 395 (1972). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Michael Patinogreen1 sentence2022Defendants are entitled to a hearing to challenge the veracity of factual statements contained in an affidavit when they make “a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause[.]” Franks, - 23 - 438 U.S. at 155-56 ; see also State v. Patino, 93 A.3d 40, 59 (R.I. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mondesirgreen1 sentence2009The motion must be denied if, when viewed in this light, the evidence “is sufficient to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Mondesir, 891 A.2d 856, 861 (R.I.2006). *25 Analysis I The Issues Raised Concerning the Testimony of William Thomas A Defendant’s Request for Copy of Immunity Order or Transcript of Hearing The defendant first argues that his due process rights were violated when the state failed to disclose all of the promises made to William in exchange for his testimony at defendant’s trial. | 1 | 1 |
Goss v. Lopezgreen2 sentences1982Due process, if it is to have meaning, must require more than a hearing that begins and ends simultaneously: “ ‘[m]any controversies have raged about the cryptic and abstract words of the Due Process Clause but there can be no doubt that at a minimum they require that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.’ * * * ‘The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard,’ * * * a right that ‘has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pendin 1982Due process, if it is to have meaning, must require more than a hearing that begins and ends simultaneously: “ ‘[m]any controversies have raged about the cryptic and abstract words of the Due Process Clause but there can be no doubt that at a minimum they require that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.’ * * * ‘The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard,’ * * * a right that ‘has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pendin | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Barbosa
green
1 sentence2025An application for an arrest warrant is presumptively valid; however, a defendant “may be able to rebut this presumption and challenge the veracity of the warrant application at a pretrial hearing. * * * Such a hearing is eponymously called a Franks hearing.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).5 This Court has made it clear that a defendant is “entitled to a hearing to challenge the veracity of factual statements contained in an affidavit when [the defendant] make[s] a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement [made] knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Verrecchia
green
1 sentence2022“We review rulings denying Franks hearings with deference.” Verrecchia, 880 A.2d at 99 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Shatney v. State
green
1 sentence2012After applicant had done so, the hearing justice indicated that applicant had filed an appeal of the hearing justice’s decision contending that his postconviction-relief application had been denied without a hearing in violation of Shatney v. State, 755 A.2d 130 (R.I.2000). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003Based on their deposition testimony, defendants requested a hearing to challenge the validity and relevance of the experts’ proposed trial testimony pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) and DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Co., 729 A.2d 677 (R.I.1999). 2003Based on their deposition testimony, defendants requested a hearing to challenge the validity and relevance of the experts’ proposed trial testimony pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) and DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Co., 729 A.2d 677 (R.I.1999). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Co.
green
1 sentence2003Based on their deposition testimony, defendants requested a hearing to challenge the validity and relevance of the experts’ proposed trial testimony pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) and DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Co., 729 A.2d 677 (R.I.1999). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Wujcik v. School Committee of Warren
neutral
1 sentence1997The Court determined that none of the reasons given for nonrenewal were contrary to the three factors set forth in Drown and, since he was afforded a hearing at which to challenge the nonrenewal decision, the plaintiff "was accorded all the protection that the law provides a nontenured teacher whose contract is not renewed." Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Plante
green
2 sentences1982See State v. Bet-tencourt, 112 R.I. 706 , 315 A.2d 53 (1974); State v. Plante, 109 R.I. 371 , 285 A.2d 395 (1972). 1982See State v. Bet-tencourt, 112 R.I. 706 , 315 A.2d 53 (1974); State v. Plante, 109 R.I. 371 , 285 A.2d 395 (1972). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Skirvin
green
2 sentences1979State v. Skirvin, 113 R.I. 443 , 322 A.2d 297 (1974); State v. Bettencourt, 112 R.I. 706 , 315 A.2d 53 (1974). 1979State v. Skirvin, 113 R.I. 443 , 322 A.2d 297 (1974); State v. Bettencourt, 112 R.I. 706 , 315 A.2d 53 (1974). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Ramsdell v. Langlois
green
1 sentence1972I. 468, 217 A.2d 83 (1966), we reiterated the past support given by this court to the view that the right to a speedy trial is waived unless the accused makes a demand, we pointed to People v. Prosser, 309 N. Y. 353 , 130 N.E.2d 891 (1955), which holds that no demand is necessary and charges the state with the burden of giving the accused a trial in due course. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Charest v. Howard
neutral
1 sentence1972I. 910, 273 A.2d 325 (1971), and State v. Plante, 108 R. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
People v. Prosser
green
2 sentences1972I. 468, 217 A.2d 83 (1966), we reiterated the past support given by this court to the view that the right to a speedy trial is waived unless the accused makes a demand, we pointed to People v. Prosser, 309 N. Y. 353 , 130 N.E.2d 891 (1955), which holds that no demand is necessary and charges the state with the burden of giving the accused a trial in due course. 1972I. 468, 217 A.2d 83 (1966), we reiterated the past support given by this court to the view that the right to a speedy trial is waived unless the accused makes a demand, we pointed to People v. Prosser, 309 N. Y. 353 , 130 N.E.2d 891 (1955), which holds that no demand is necessary and charges the state with the burden of giving the accused a trial in due course. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.