9 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Walker v. Stategreen1 sentence2005In those jurisdictions that have permitted the invocation of the doctrine of laches to bar a long-delayed application for postconviction relief, it has been held that the state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant unreasonably delayed in seeking relief and that the state is prejudiced by the delay. 12 See, e.g., Wright, 711 So.2d at 67 (“Laches is sustainable in a criminal case where there has been a lack of due *396 diligence on the part of the defendant in bringing forth the claim and prejudice to the State.”); Walker, 769 N.E.2d at 1167 (“To succee | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Stategreen1 sentence2005In those jurisdictions that have permitted the invocation of the doctrine of laches to bar a long-delayed application for postconviction relief, it has been held that the state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant unreasonably delayed in seeking relief and that the state is prejudiced by the delay. 12 See, e.g., Wright, 711 So.2d at 67 (“Laches is sustainable in a criminal case where there has been a lack of due *396 diligence on the part of the defendant in bringing forth the claim and prejudice to the State.”); Walker, 769 N.E.2d at 1167 (“To succee | 1 | 1 |
Curtis C. Oliver v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2005In those jurisdictions that have permitted the invocation of the doctrine of laches to bar a long-delayed application for postconviction relief, it has been held that the state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant unreasonably delayed in seeking relief and that the state is prejudiced by the delay. 12 See, e.g., Wright, 711 So.2d at 67 (“Laches is sustainable in a criminal case where there has been a lack of due *396 diligence on the part of the defendant in bringing forth the claim and prejudice to the State.”); Walker, 769 N.E.2d at 1167 (“To succee | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ivan Melchor Moreno and Rigoberto Melchor Morenogreen1 sentence1991As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized in S.E.C. v. First Financial Group of Texas, Inc., the question of the validity of the invocation of the privilege is not for the party invoking the privilege but “for the court to decide after conducting ‘a particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the questioning party seeks to explore, whether or not the privilege is well-founded.’ ” 659 F.2d at 668 (quoting United States v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir.1976)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Palmigianogreen2 sentences1987One year after the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Loper v. Beto, this court held that a predicate to the invocation of the rule in Loper prohibiting the record, of an uncounseled prior conviction to impeach credibility was a “showing by the witness that he was not represented by counsel at the time of the entry of his past convictions.” State v. Palmigiano, 112 R.I. 348, 357 , 309 A.2d 855, 860 (1973). 1987One year after the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Loper v. Beto, this court held that a predicate to the invocation of the rule in Loper prohibiting the record, of an uncounseled prior conviction to impeach credibility was a “showing by the witness that he was not represented by counsel at the time of the entry of his past convictions.” State v. Palmigiano, 112 R.I. 348, 357 , 309 A.2d 855, 860 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
Richard A. Ash, on Behalf of Himself, and on Behalf of Bethelehem Steel Corporation v. Stewart S. Cort, and Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Nominalgreen1 sentence1986Ash v. Cort, 512 F.2d 909, 913 (3d Cir.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 |
|---|---|---|
Oregon v. Kennedy
green
2 sentences1992“In such a case, the defendant’s valued right to complete his trial before the first jury would be a hollow shell if the inevitable motion for mistrial were held to prevent a later invocation of the bar of double jeopardy in all circumstances.” Gordon, 508 A.2d at 1345 (quoting Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 673 , 102 S.Ct. at 2088 , 72 L.Ed.2d at 423 ). 1992“In such a case, the defendant’s valued right to complete his trial before the first jury would be a hollow shell if the inevitable motion for mistrial were held to prevent a later invocation of the bar of double jeopardy in all circumstances.” Gordon, 508 A.2d at 1345 (quoting Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 673 , 102 S.Ct. at 2088 , 72 L.Ed.2d at 423 ). | 2 | 1986–1992 |
State v. Paquette
green
2 sentences2003The defendant also argues that pursuant to State v. Paquette, 117 R.I. 638 , 369 A.2d 1096 (1977), it was essential that he be instructed about immunity. 2003The defendant also argues that pursuant to State v. Paquette, 117 R.I. 638 , 369 A.2d 1096 (1977), it was essential that he be instructed about immunity. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Hometown Properties, Inc. v. Fleming
green
1 sentence2000We noted in Hometown Properties, Inc., that the Legislature’s clear intention for enacting the anti-SLAPP statute in 1993 was to allow the “full participation by persons and organizations and robust discussion of issues of public concern before the legislative, judicial, and administrative bodies, and in other public fora.” 680 A.2d at 61 (quoting § 9-33-1). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Gordon
green
1 sentence1992“In such a case, the defendant’s valued right to complete his trial before the first jury would be a hollow shell if the inevitable motion for mistrial were held to prevent a later invocation of the bar of double jeopardy in all circumstances.” Gordon, 508 A.2d at 1345 (quoting Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 673 , 102 S.Ct. at 2088 , 72 L.Ed.2d at 423 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,322 Securities and Exchange Commission v. First Financial Group of Texas, Inc., William H. Howton
green
1 sentence1991As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized in S.E.C. v. First Financial Group of Texas, Inc., the question of the validity of the invocation of the privilege is not for the party invoking the privilege but “for the court to decide after conducting ‘a particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the questioning party seeks to explore, whether or not the privilege is well-founded.’ ” 659 F.2d at 668 (quoting United States v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir.1976)). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Commonwealth v. Greene
green
1 sentence1991In Commonwealth v. Greene, 445 Pa. 228 , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a jury may not draw any inference from a witness's exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.