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.
8 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota 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 |
|---|---|---|
Public Service Commission v. Eighth Judicial District Courtgreen2 sentences1993See Public Service Com’n v. Eighth Jud.D.Ct., 107 Nev. 680 , 818 P.2d 396, 399 (1991). 1993See Public Service Com'n v. Eighth Jud.D.Ct., 107 Nev. 680 , 818 P.2d 396, 399 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
PUBLIC SERV. COM'N v. Eighth Jud. D. Ct.green2 sentences1993See Public Service Com’n v. Eighth Jud.D.Ct., 107 Nev. 680 , 818 P.2d 396, 399 (1991). 1993See Public Service Com'n v. Eighth Jud.D.Ct., 107 Nev. 680 , 818 P.2d 396, 399 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bobogreen2 sentences1974The defendant in the instant case had the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege and his response to the interrogatory posed appears to fall within the ambit of responses which are sufficiently evocative of the invocation of the privilege so as to be protected from disclosure at trial, since such disclosure amounts to a comment on the invocation of the privilege, which disclosure is forbidden by Miranda v. Arizona, supra. In People v. Bobo, 390 Mich. 355 , 212 N.W.2d 190, 192 (1973), the Michigan Supreme Court said: “We will not condone conduct which directly or indirectly restricts the 1974The defendant in the instant case had the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege and his response to the interrogatory posed appears to fall within the ambit of responses which are sufficiently evocative of the invocation of the privilege so as to be protected from disclosure at trial, since such disclosure amounts to a comment on the invocation of the privilege, which disclosure is forbidden by Miranda v. Arizona, supra. In People v. Bobo, 390 Mich. 355 , 212 N.W.2d 190, 192 (1973), the Michigan Supreme Court said: “We will not condone conduct which directly or indirectly restricts the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Severancegreen2 sentences1974The fact that a witness did not make a statement may be shown only to contradict his assertion that he did.” In People v. Severance, 43 Mich.App. 394 , 204 N.W.2d 357, 358 (1972), a Michigan Court of Appeals posed the question as follows: “Was it reversible error to allow a police officer to testify that after defendant had been warned of his constitutional rights, he remained silent, despite the absence of objection thereto?” In determining that such testimony was reversible error, the Michigan Appeals Court said in Severance, supra, 204 N.W.2d at 359 : “The rule is now firmly established tha 1974The fact that a witness did not make a statement may be shown only to contradict his assertion that he did.” In People v. Severance, 43 Mich.App. 394 , 204 N.W.2d 357, 358 (1972), a Michigan Court of Appeals posed the question as follows: “Was it reversible error to allow a police officer to testify that after defendant had been warned of his constitutional rights, he remained silent, despite the absence of objection thereto?” In determining that such testimony was reversible error, the Michigan Appeals Court said in Severance, supra, 204 N.W.2d at 359 : “The rule is now firmly established tha | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Aabrekke
green
2 sentences2019Aabrekke , 2011 ND 131 , ¶ 9, 800 N.W.2d 284 . 2019Aabrekke, 2011 ND 131, ¶ 9 , 800 N.W.2d 284 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Aabrekke
green
2 sentences2019Aabrekke , 2011 ND 131 , ¶ 9, 800 N.W.2d 284 . 2019Aabrekke, 2011 ND 131, ¶ 9 , 800 N.W.2d 284 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
McKechnie v. Berg
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Northern States Power Co. v. North Dakota Public Service Commission
green
2 sentences1995N.S.P. v. Public Service Commission, 502 N.W.2d 240 (N.D. 1993). 1995N.S.P. v. Public Service Commission, 502 N.W.2d 240 (N.D.1993). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Stevens
green
1 sentence1986Stevens, supra, at 257 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
green
2 sentences1981A ‘plain view,’ under its first connotation, is no intrusion at all and needs no justification; a ‘plain view,’ under its second connotation, is a justifiable intrusion, with the ‘plain view doctrine’ articulating the rationale of the justification.” 4 .The Coolidge plurality identifies these three as: (1) there must be a prior valid intrusion; (2) the observation of the evidence must be inadvertent; and (3) it must be immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them. 403 U.S. at 466 , 91 S.Ct. at 2038 , 29 L.Ed.2d at 583 . 5 . 1981A ‘plain view,’ under its first connotation, is no intrusion at all and needs no justification; a ‘plain view,’ under its second connotation, is a justifiable intrusion, with the ‘plain view doctrine’ articulating the rationale of the justification.” 4 .The Coolidge plurality identifies these three as: (1) there must be a prior valid intrusion; (2) the observation of the evidence must be inadvertent; and (3) it must be immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them. 403 U.S. at 466 , 91 S.Ct. at 2038 , 29 L.Ed.2d at 583 . 5 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.