8 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska 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. Robinsongreen2 sentences2015See State v. Robinson, 718 N.W.2d 400 , 409 n.4 (Minn. 2006) (“Nor does the residual exception itself prevent us from considering corroborating evidence. 2015See State v. Robinson, 718 N.W.2d 400 , 409 n. 4 (Minn.2006) ("Nor does the residual exception itself prevent us from considering corroborating evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Ryan v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See Ryan, 899 P.2d at 1374 (quoting the first paragraph of the commentary to Alaska Evidence Rule 803(23)) and at 1379. | 1 | 1 |
Brandon v. Stategreen1 sentence1992Brandon v. State, 778 P.2d 221, 227 (Alaska App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Helen L. Huff, Administratrix of the Estate of Jessee Huff, Deceased, Cross-Appellant v. White Motor Corporation, Cross-Appelleegreen1 sentence1991That witness can be cross-examined and his credibility thus tested in the same way as that of any other witness.” Huff v. White Motor Corp., 609 F.2d 286, 293 (7th Cir.1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of ASW
green
1 sentence2021Evid. 803(23), 804(b)(5) (requiring allowable hearsay to have “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness”). 17 Broderick v. King’s Way Assembly of God Church, 808 P.2d 1211 , 1218 n.17 (Alaska 1991). 18 834 P.2d 801 , 802-03 (Alaska 1992). 19 Cf. Broderick, 808 P.2d at 1218 n.17. -13- 7573 hearsay evidence was admitted under a residual exception to the general hearsay rules or under Rule 18(f)’s three-factor test; or how the hearsay evidence was used to support the superior court’s termination findings. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Broderick v. King's Way Assembly of God Church
green
2 sentences2021Evid. 803(23), 804(b)(5) (requiring allowable hearsay to have “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness”). 17 Broderick v. King’s Way Assembly of God Church, 808 P.2d 1211 , 1218 n.17 (Alaska 1991). 18 834 P.2d 801 , 802-03 (Alaska 1992). 19 Cf. Broderick, 808 P.2d at 1218 n.17. -13- 7573 hearsay evidence was admitted under a residual exception to the general hearsay rules or under Rule 18(f)’s three-factor test; or how the hearsay evidence was used to support the superior court’s termination findings. 2021Evid. 803(23), 804(b)(5) (requiring allowable hearsay to have “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness”). 17 Broderick v. King’s Way Assembly of God Church, 808 P.2d 1211 , 1218 n.17 (Alaska 1991). 18 834 P.2d 801 , 802-03 (Alaska 1992). 19 Cf. Broderick, 808 P.2d at 1218 n.17. -13- 7573 hearsay evidence was admitted under a residual exception to the general hearsay rules or under Rule 18(f)’s three-factor test; or how the hearsay evidence was used to support the superior court’s termination findings. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
United States v. Salerno
green
2 sentences2017Thus, when Wahl argues that Hardwick’s grand jury testimony should have been admitted under the residual clause of Rule 804(b)(5), he is essentially arguing that even when the opposing party did not have a similar motive to develop the person’s‘testimony on the earlier occasion, there are nevertheless situations where the former testimony evidence' has circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness that are equivalent to the “similar motive” requirement. *424 The United States Supreme Court rejected almost this same argument in United States v. Salerno, 505 U.S. 317 , 112 S.Ct. 2503 , 120 L.Ed.2 2017Thus, when Wahl argues that Hardwick’s grand jury testimony should have been admitted under the residual clause of Rule 804(b)(5), he is essentially arguing that even when the opposing party did not have a similar motive to develop the person’s‘testimony on the earlier occasion, there are nevertheless situations where the former testimony evidence' has circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness that are equivalent to the “similar motive” requirement. *424 The United States Supreme Court rejected almost this same argument in United States v. Salerno, 505 U.S. 317 , 112 S.Ct. 2503 , 120 L.Ed.2 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Greenway v. State
green
1 sentence1988The state argues that L.A.’s statements on October 10,1986, should be admissible (1) as a “first complaint” of sexual abuse, Greenway v. State, 626 P.2d 1060 (Alaska 1980); (2) as statements made for medical diagnosis and treatment, A.R.E. 803(4); and (3) under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Wellmix, Inc. v. City of Anchorage
green
1 sentence1972Moore, Federal Practice § 60.27[1], at 343 (2d ed. 1971) (emphasis in original) . 7 . 471 P.2d 408 (Alaska 1970). 8 . | 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.