6 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1971–2024 1 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. McManusgreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., State v. McManus, 990 A.2d 1229, 1234 (R.I. 2010) (“The applicable standard of review of a trial justice’s admission of evidence is a clear abuse of discretion.”). | 1 | 1 |
Teresa Ambrosini v. Jorge Labarraque and the Upjohn Companygreen1 sentence2003See, e.g., Ambrosini, 101 F.3d at 140 (the admissibility inquiry focuses not on the expert’s conclusions, but on whether the methodologies and reasoning used to reach the expert’s conclusions were scientifically valid); Arnold v. Dow Chemical Co., 32 F.Supp.2d 584, 589-90 (E.D.N.Y.1999) (despite reservations about the conclusions of the expert, the problems associated with the proposed testimony were properly to be resolved by the jury after cross-examination). | 1 | 1 |
Arnold v. Dow Chemical Co.green1 sentence2003See, e.g., Ambrosini, 101 F.3d at 140 (the admissibility inquiry focuses not on the expert’s conclusions, but on whether the methodologies and reasoning used to reach the expert’s conclusions were scientifically valid); Arnold v. Dow Chemical Co., 32 F.Supp.2d 584, 589-90 (E.D.N.Y.1999) (despite reservations about the conclusions of the expert, the problems associated with the proposed testimony were properly to be resolved by the jury after cross-examination). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Preslergreen1 sentence2000See Presler, 731 A.2d at 701 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ucerogreen1 sentence1997See State v. Ucero, 450 A.2d 809, 815 (R.I.1982). | 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. Berker
green
2 sentences2000In fact, we never have been called upon to decide the applicability of the mandate “none shall be given.” In its brief, the state pointed to State v. Berker, 120 R.I. 849 , 391 A.2d 107 (1978), as support for its position that the prohibition against a nonconsensual test in § 31- 27-2.1 has no bearing upon the questions before us today. 2000In fact, we never have been called upon to decide the applicability of the mandate “none shall be given.” In its brief, the state pointed to State v. Berker, 120 R.I. 849 , 391 A.2d 107 (1978), as support for its position that the prohibition against a nonconsensual test in § 31- 27-2.1 has no bearing upon the questions before us today. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Leavitt
green
1 sentence1971State v. Leavitt, supra. 2 We turn next to a consideration of the exceptions encompassed by defendant’s contention that it was prejudicial error for the trial justice to admit the testimony of Walter Jordan into evidence. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.