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.
9 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Keith Harrisongreen2 sentences2016See Harrison, 66 A.3d at 441 . 2016See Harrison, 66 A.3d at 441 . | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Dissolution of Anderson, Zangari & Bossiangreen1 sentence2018And again, that presumption of innocence which he enjoys stays with him throughout the course of the trial and remains with him right into the jury room and only disappears if you decide collectively and unanimously that the [s]tate has met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the charge of first[-]degree sexual assault.” 10 The defendant asked for and received a consent instruction. 11 A.2d 235 , 242 (R.I. 2010) (quoting In the Matter of the Dissolution of Anderson, Zangari & Bossian, 888 A.2d 973, 975 (R.I. 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
Welsh v. Wisconsingreen2 sentences2017Exigent Circumstances We also reject the Superior Court justice’s conclusion that exigent circumstances were present in this case because there was “a youngster running around in the house[,] [s]hots had recently been fired, [and] the gun was not accounted for * * “For this Court to conclude there was an exigency, .the ‘ultimate test is whether there is such a compelling necessity for immediate action as will not brook the delay of obtaining a warrant/ ” Gonzalez, 136 A.3d at 1151 (quoting United States v. Adams, 621 F.2d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 1980)), In demonstrating a compelling and urgent necess 2017Exigent Circumstances We also reject the Superior Court justice’s conclusion that exigent circumstances were present in this case because there was “a youngster running around in the house[,] [s]hots had recently been fired, [and] the gun was not accounted for * * “For this Court to conclude there was an exigency, .the ‘ultimate test is whether there is such a compelling necessity for immediate action as will not brook the delay of obtaining a warrant/ ” Gonzalez, 136 A.3d at 1151 (quoting United States v. Adams, 621 F.2d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 1980)), In demonstrating a compelling and urgent necess | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Carol E. Adamsgreen2 sentences2017Exigent Circumstances We also reject the Superior Court justice’s conclusion that exigent circumstances were present in this case because there was “a youngster running around in the house[,] [s]hots had recently been fired, [and] the gun was not accounted for * * “For this Court to conclude there was an exigency, .the ‘ultimate test is whether there is such a compelling necessity for immediate action as will not brook the delay of obtaining a warrant/ ” Gonzalez, 136 A.3d at 1151 (quoting United States v. Adams, 621 F.2d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 1980)), In demonstrating a compelling and urgent necess 2017Exigent Circumstances We also reject the Superior Court justice’s conclusion that exigent circumstances were present in this case because there was “a youngster running around in the house[,] [s]hots had recently been fired, [and] the gun was not accounted for * * “For this Court to conclude there was an exigency, .the ‘ultimate test is whether there is such a compelling necessity for immediate action as will not brook the delay of obtaining a warrant/ ” Gonzalez, 136 A.3d at 1151 (quoting United States v. Adams, 621 F.2d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 1980)), In demonstrating a compelling and urgent necess | 1 | 1 |
Duquette v. Godboutgreen1 sentence2017In discerning whether an exigency existed, “[t]he police [must] have [had] an objective, reasonable belief that a crisis can only be avoided by swift and immediate action.” State v. Gonsalves, 553 A.2d 1073, 1075 (R.I. 1989) (quoting Duquette v. Godbout, 471 A.2d 1359, 1363 (R.I. 1984)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gonsalvesgreen1 sentence2017In discerning whether an exigency existed, “[t]he police [must] have [had] an objective, reasonable belief that a crisis can only be avoided by swift and immediate action.” State v. Gonsalves, 553 A.2d 1073, 1075 (R.I. 1989) (quoting Duquette v. Godbout, 471 A.2d 1359, 1363 (R.I. 1984)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Amaralgreen2 sentences1986And as this court has already decided, proof of intoxication is certainly relevant evidence for a jury to consider in drivihg-to-endan-ger, death-resulting trials. 6 State v. Northup, 486 A.2d 589, 594-95 (R.I.1985) (citing State v. Amaral, 109 R.I. 379, 387 , 285 A.2d 783, 787 (1972)). 1986And as this court has already decided, proof of intoxication is certainly relevant evidence for a jury to consider in drivihg-to-endan-ger, death-resulting trials. 6 State v. Northup, 486 A.2d 589, 594-95 (R.I.1985) (citing State v. Amaral, 109 R.I. 379, 387 , 285 A.2d 783, 787 (1972)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Northupgreen1 sentence1986And as this court has already decided, proof of intoxication is certainly relevant evidence for a jury to consider in drivihg-to-endan-ger, death-resulting trials. 6 State v. Northup, 486 A.2d 589, 594-95 (R.I.1985) (citing State v. Amaral, 109 R.I. 379, 387 , 285 A.2d 783, 787 (1972)). | 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. Tony Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2017Exigent Circumstances We also reject the Superior Court justice’s conclusion that exigent circumstances were present in this case because there was “a youngster running around in the house[,] [s]hots had recently been fired, [and] the gun was not accounted for * * *.” “For this Court to conclude there was an exigency, the ‘ultimate test is whether there is such a compelling necessity for immediate action as will not brook the delay of obtaining a warrant.’” Gonzalez, 136 A.3d at 1151 (quoting United States v. Adams, 621 F.2d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 1980)). 2017Exigent Circumstances We also reject the Superior Court justice’s conclusion that exigent circumstances were present in this case because there was “a youngster running around in the house[,] [s]hots had recently been fired, [and] the gun was not accounted for * * “For this Court to conclude there was an exigency, .the ‘ultimate test is whether there is such a compelling necessity for immediate action as will not brook the delay of obtaining a warrant/ ” Gonzalez, 136 A.3d at 1151 (quoting United States v. Adams, 621 F.2d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 1980)), In demonstrating a compelling and urgent necess | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Ferreira v. Strack
green
1 sentence2011A trespasser is one who "intentionally and without the consent or privilege enters onto another's property." Ferreira v. Strack , 652 A.2d 965 , 969 (R.I. 1995). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Skrabalak v. Rock
green
2 sentences2010In the event an assignment is made to a "duly authorized franchisee, the Landlord's reasonable consent shall be required, and such consent may be based upon, without limitation, the Landlord's reasonable satisfaction with the financial statements and personal guaranty of such proposed franchisee." Id. 2010As a result, the Court finds that the stock sale did not alter the nature of Davis' performance or risk under the Guaranty; and he remains personally liable. *Page 14 B The Lease Under the terms of the Lease, Davco was prohibited from "voluntarily, or by operation of law, assign[ing], transfer[ing], mortgag[ing], pledg[ing], hypothecate[ing] or encumber[ing]" the Lease "or allow[ing] any other person (the employees, agents, servants and invitees of Tenant excepted) to occupy or use the Premises, or any portion thereof, without first obtaining the written consent of Landlord, which consent shal | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. DiCicco
green
2 sentences2000For the reasons that follow, the Chief Justice and I conclude that this Court’s decisions in State v. Timms, 505 A.2d 1132 (R.I.1986), and State v. DiCicco, 707 A.2d 251 (R.I.1998), compel us to answer this question in the affirmative. 2000For the reasons that follow, the Chief Justice and I conclude that this Court's decisions in State v. Timms, 505 A.2d 1132 (R.I.1986), and State v. DiCicco, 707 A.2d 251 (R.I.1998), compel us to answer this question in the affirmative. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Locke
green
2 sentences2000State v. Locke, 418 A.2d 843 (R.I.1980). 2000State v. Locke, 418 A.2d 843 (R.I.1980). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Timms
green
2 sentences2000Timms, 505 A.2d at 1134-35 . 2000For the reasons that follow, the Chief Justice and I conclude that this Court’s decisions in State v. Timms, 505 A.2d 1132 (R.I.1986), and State v. DiCicco, 707 A.2d 251 (R.I.1998), compel us to answer this question in the affirmative. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Robarge
green
2 sentences2000Id. 2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Oates v. New York Hospital
green
1 sentence1993Id. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.