7 Vermont opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Vermont 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. Hancegreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., State v. Hance, 157 Vt. 222, 224 , 596 A.2d 365, 366 (1991) (explaining that defendant can waive constitutional or statutory rights if “waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary”). 2021See, e.g., State v. Hance, 157 Vt. 222, 224 , 596 A.2d 365, 366 (1991) (explaining that defendant can waive constitutional or statutory rights if “waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Cruz-Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2020Id. ¶ 7 (citing State v. Longe, 170 Vt. 3 A waiver of the statute of limitations by a defendant requires a knowing and voluntary waiver, in writing, and with the consent of the prosecution. 13 V.S.A. § 4503(b). 4 35, 40 n.*, 743 A.2d 569 , 572 n.* (1999)); see also State v. Smith, 2010 VT 15 , ¶ 8 n.4, 187 Vt. 600 , 992 A.2d 310 (mem.) (distinguishing “between invited error, which bars review where a party ‘deliberately considers an issue and makes an intentional decision to forego it,’ and plain error, which is subject to review when a party through neglect ‘fails to make a proper objection’ | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2020Id. ¶ 7 (citing State v. Longe, 170 Vt. 3 A waiver of the statute of limitations by a defendant requires a knowing and voluntary waiver, in writing, and with the consent of the prosecution. 13 V.S.A. § 4503(b). 4 35, 40 n.*, 743 A.2d 569 , 572 n.* (1999)); see also State v. Smith, 2010 VT 15 , ¶ 8 n.4, 187 Vt. 600 , 992 A.2d 310 (mem.) (distinguishing “between invited error, which bars review where a party ‘deliberately considers an issue and makes an intentional decision to forego it,’ and plain error, which is subject to review when a party through neglect ‘fails to make a proper objection’ 2020Id. ¶ 7 (citing State v. Longe, 170 Vt. 3 A waiver of the statute of limitations by a defendant requires a knowing and voluntary waiver, in writing, and with the consent of the prosecution. 13 V.S.A. § 4503(b). 4 35, 40 n.*, 743 A.2d 569 , 572 n.* (1999)); see also State v. Smith, 2010 VT 15 , ¶ 8 n.4, 187 Vt. 600 , 992 A.2d 310 (mem.) (distinguishing “between invited error, which bars review where a party ‘deliberately considers an issue and makes an intentional decision to forego it,’ and plain error, which is subject to review when a party through neglect ‘fails to make a proper objection’ | 1 | 1 |
cluster 708053green1 sentence2012See, e.g., Sharkey v. Ultramar Energy Ltd,., 70 F.3d 226, 231 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that waiver of pension benefits under ERISA is subject to closer scrutiny than other waivers, and requires a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to benefits). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1995The United States Supreme Court has recently held that "after a knowing and voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights, law enforcement officers may continue questioning until and unless the suspect clearly requests an attorney." Davis v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 2356 , 129 L.E.2d 362 (1994). 1995The United States Supreme Court has recently held that “after a knowing and voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights, law enforcement officers may continue questioning until and unless the suspect clearly requests an attorney.” Davis v. United States, — U.S. —, —, 114 S. Ct. 2350, 2356 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Anthony P. MacKey Appeal of Sean M. Jacksongreen1 sentence1994See United States v. Crutcher, 405 F.2d 239, 242-43 (2d Cir. 1968) (trial court directed selection and impaneling of jury despite knowledge that defendant had been arrested and was held in another state), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 908 (1969); United States v. Mackey, 915 F.2d 69, 71 (2d Cir. 1990) (jury impaneled despite call from defendant that he would be late due to transportation problems). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. George Crutcher, Hampton C. Hazel, Also Known as Robert Jones, and John Paynegreen1 sentence1994See United States v. Crutcher, 405 F.2d 239, 242-43 (2d Cir. 1968) (trial court directed selection and impaneling of jury despite knowledge that defendant had been arrested and was held in another state), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 908 (1969); United States v. Mackey, 915 F.2d 69, 71 (2d Cir. 1990) (jury impaneled despite call from defendant that he would be late due to transportation problems). | 1 | 1 |
Crutcher v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1994See United States v. Crutcher, 405 F.2d 239, 242-43 (2d Cir. 1968) (trial court directed selection and impaneling of jury despite knowledge that defendant had been arrested and was held in another state), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 908 (1969); United States v. Mackey, 915 F.2d 69, 71 (2d Cir. 1990) (jury impaneled despite call from defendant that he would be late due to transportation problems). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Longe
green
1 sentence2020Id. ¶ 7 (citing State v. Longe, 170 Vt. 3 A waiver of the statute of limitations by a defendant requires a knowing and voluntary waiver, in writing, and with the consent of the prosecution. 13 V.S.A. § 4503(b). 4 35, 40 n.*, 743 A.2d 569 , 572 n.* (1999)); see also State v. Smith, 2010 VT 15 , ¶ 8 n.4, 187 Vt. 600 , 992 A.2d 310 (mem.) (distinguishing “between invited error, which bars review where a party ‘deliberately considers an issue and makes an intentional decision to forego it,’ and plain error, which is subject to review when a party through neglect ‘fails to make a proper objection’ | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Class v. United States
green
2 sentences2018For a related discussion of the waiver of the right to appeal constitutional violations, see Class v. United States , --- U.S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 798 , 803-06, 200 L.Ed.2d 37 (2018). 9 This phrase in Rule 11(e)(2) appears to suggest that a trial court may defer decision on acceptance or rejection of the plea agreement only to consider the presentencing investigation report. 2018For a related discussion of the waiver of the right to appeal constitutional violations, see Class v. United States , --- U.S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 798 , 803-06, 200 L.Ed.2d 37 (2018). 9 This phrase in Rule 11(e)(2) appears to suggest that a trial court may defer decision on acceptance or rejection of the plea agreement only to consider the presentencing investigation report. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Oregon v. Elstad
green
2 sentences1994Id. at 317 . 1994Id. at 317 , 105 S.Ct. at 1297 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.