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.
10 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vance v. Ball State Univ.green2 sentences2020Moreover, there is no evidence that Gonsalves- 5 Additionally, plaintiff urges this Court to adopt an exception to the general agency rule, which exception is alluded to in the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013), which held, in the context of a Title VII case, that in some circumstances an employer may be liable for an employee’s acts performed outside the scope of his or her employment when the employee was aided in accomplishing said acts by the existence of the agency relationship. 2020Moreover, there is no evidence that Gonsalves- 5 Additionally, plaintiff urges this Court to adopt an exception to the general agency rule, which exception is alluded to in the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013), which held, in the context of a Title VII case, that in some circumstances an employer may be liable for an employee’s acts performed outside the scope of his or her employment when the employee was aided in accomplishing said acts by the existence of the agency relationship. | 2 | 2 |
Neil v. Biggersgreen2 sentences2018The defendant asks this Court to adopt a rule embraced by the Wisconsin Supreme Court requiring suppression of an identification absent a showing of exigency or necessity. 6 Specifically, he avers that use of the show-up procedure was unnecessary here because police had probable cause to arrest defendant prior to the show-ups; he points out that "the shooter escaped in a car registered to [defendant,]" defendant was located by the police "nearby" the scene of the shooting, and defendant "tried to evade the police." In the alternative, defendant asks this Court, under the second step of the ana 2018The defendant asks this Court to adopt a rule embraced by the Wisconsin Supreme Court requiring suppression of an identification absent a showing of exigency or necessity. 6 Specifically, he avers that use of the show-up procedure was unnecessary here because police had probable cause to arrest defendant prior to the show-ups; he points out that "the shooter escaped in a car registered to [defendant,]" defendant was located by the police "nearby" the scene of the shooting, and defendant "tried to evade the police." In the alternative, defendant asks this Court, under the second step of the ana | 1 | 1 |
Ohler v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2015See Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 , 5 In his brief, defendant also argues that the trial justice erroneously based his pretrial decision on Rule 404 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, claiming that “the looping and often outright erroneous reasoning that led the trial court to its decision reveals a mosaic of prejudicial error that also highlights the improper way in which this jury likely considered that evidence.” However, defendant also recognized that only the final ruling by the trial justice, which happened midtrial, is the subject of this appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2012The state rebuts defendant’s proposition that we adopt a “rule of completeness” in relation to Rule 804(b)(3), contending that the six excerpts at issue were appropriately “excluded from evidence because they were not sufficiently against [Delestre’s] penal interest to justify their admission.” The state cites Smith v. State, 647 A.2d 1083, 1088 (Del.1994), and argues that “[n]on-self-ineulpatory statements * * * are simply rank hearsay that do[ ] not enjoy any special guarantee of reliability.” “The rationale for [Rule 804(b)(3) ] is that people are not likely to make statements that are dama | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lynchgreen1 sentence2012The state rebuts defendant’s proposition that we adopt a “rule of completeness” in relation to Rule 804(b)(3), contending that the six excerpts at issue were appropriately “excluded from evidence because they were not sufficiently against [Delestre’s] penal interest to justify their admission.” The state cites Smith v. State, 647 A.2d 1083, 1088 (Del.1994), and argues that “[n]on-self-ineulpatory statements * * * are simply rank hearsay that do[ ] not enjoy any special guarantee of reliability.” “The rationale for [Rule 804(b)(3) ] is that people are not likely to make statements that are dama | 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. Patel
green
1 sentence2018The defendant asks this Court to adopt a rule embraced by the Wisconsin Supreme Court requiring suppression of an identification absent a showing of exigency or necessity. 6 Specifically, he avers that use of the show-up procedure was unnecessary here because police had probable cause to arrest defendant prior to the show-ups; he points out that "the shooter escaped in a car registered to [defendant,]" defendant was located by the police "nearby" the scene of the shooting, and defendant "tried to evade the police." In the alternative, defendant asks this Court, under the second step of the ana | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bennett v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
green
1 sentence2003Bennett v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 652 P.2d 1178 (Nev. 1982). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Pargoud v. United States
green
1 sentence2000We agree with the rationale enunciated by Justice Field for exempting judges from exposure to litigation, as derived from the observation of Lord Coke in Floyd and Barker, that “if [judges] were required to answer [questions involving alleged corruption], it would ‘tend to the scandal and subversion of all justice[, and] those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual calumniations.’ ” Bradley, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 347-48 , 20 L.Ed. at 649 -50 (quoting Floyd, 77 Eng. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Bradley v. Fisher
green
1 sentence2000We agree with the rationale enunciated by Justice Field for exempting judges from exposure to litigation, as derived from the observation of Lord Coke in Floyd and Barker, that “if [judges] were required to answer [questions involving alleged corruption], it would ‘tend to the scandal and subversion of all justice[, and] those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual calumniations.’ ” Bradley, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 347-48 , 20 L.Ed. at 649 -50 (quoting Floyd, 77 Eng. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Siravo v. Great American Insurance
green
2 sentences1986The plaintiff urges this court to adopt the standard set forth in Siravo v. Great American Insurance Co., 122 R.I. 538 , 410 A.2d 116 (1980), wherein this court held that an insured who files a late sworn proof of loss is not barred from recovery under a policy absent proof that the insurer was prejudiced. 1986The plaintiff urges this court to adopt the standard set forth in Siravo v. Great American Insurance Co., 122 R.I. 538 , 410 A.2d 116 (1980), wherein this court held that an insured who files a late sworn proof of loss is not barred from recovery under a policy absent proof that the insurer was prejudiced. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. McGee
green
2 sentences1981People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d at 56 , 399 N.E.2d at 1181 , 242 N.Y.S.2d at 161. 1981People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d at 56 , 399 N.E.2d at 1181 , 242 N.Y.S.2d at 161. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Seider v. Roth
red
1 sentence1969In the argument before us, plaintiff respondents urged this court to adopt the rule laid down in Seider v. Roth, 269 N.Y.S. 2d 99 . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.