10 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barnett v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025“A proper balancing under KRE 403 requires that a trial court consider three factors: the probative worth of the evidence, the probability that the evidence will cause undue prejudice, and whether the harmful effects substantially outweigh the probative worth.” Yates v. Commonwealth, 430 S.W.3d 883, 897 (Ky. 2014) (citing Barnett v. Commonwealth, 979 S.W.2d 98, 100 (Ky. 1998)). 2023“A proper balancing under KRE 403 requires that a trial court consider three factors: the probative worth of the evidence, the probability that the evidence will cause undue prejudice, and whether the harmful effects substantially outweigh the probative worth.” Yates v. Commonwealth, 430 S.W.3d 883, 897 (Ky. 2014) (citing Barnett v. Commonwealth, 979 S.W.2d 98, 100 (Ky.1998)). | 9 | 9 |
Yates v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025“A proper balancing under KRE 403 requires that a trial court consider three factors: the probative worth of the evidence, the probability that the evidence will cause undue prejudice, and whether the harmful effects substantially outweigh the probative worth.” Yates v. Commonwealth, 430 S.W.3d 883, 897 (Ky. 2014) (citing Barnett v. Commonwealth, 979 S.W.2d 98, 100 (Ky. 1998)). 2023“A proper balancing under KRE 403 requires that a trial court consider three factors: the probative worth of the evidence, the probability that the evidence will cause undue prejudice, and whether the harmful effects substantially outweigh the probative worth.” Yates v. Commonwealth, 430 S.W.3d 883, 897 (Ky. 2014) (citing Barnett v. Commonwealth, 979 S.W.2d 98, 100 (Ky.1998)). | 6 | 6 |
Major v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2021KRE4 403 provides: “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” “A proper balancing under KRE 403 requires that a trial court consider three factors: the probative worth of the evidence, the probability that the evidence will cause undue prejudice, and whether the harmful effects substantially outweigh the probative worth.” Yates v. Commonwealth, 430 S.W.3d 883, 897 (Ky. 2014) | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2024To determine whether the causal link has been broken between the unlawful stop and law enforcement’s discovery of evidence, Strieff requires a court to consider three factors: (1) “the ‘temporal proximity’ between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of evidence[;]” (2) “the presence of intervening circumstances[;]” and (3) “the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” Id. at 239, 136 S. Ct. at 2062 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04 , 95 S. Ct. 2254, 2261-62 , 45 L. 2024To determine whether the causal link has been broken between the unlawful stop and law enforcement’s discovery of evidence, Strieff requires a court to consider three factors: (1) “the ‘temporal proximity’ between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of evidence[;]” (2) “the presence of intervening circumstances[;]” and (3) “the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” Id. at 239, 136 S. Ct. at 2062 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04 , 95 S. Ct. 2254, 2261-62 , 45 L. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Utah v. Strieff
green
1 sentence2024To determine whether the causal link has been broken between the unlawful stop and law enforcement’s discovery of evidence, Strieff requires a court to consider three factors: (1) “the ‘temporal proximity’ between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of evidence[;]” (2) “the presence of intervening circumstances[;]” and (3) “the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” Id. at 239, 136 S. Ct. at 2062 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04 , 95 S. Ct. 2254, 2261-62 , 45 L. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.