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.
7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 28 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Daines v. Vincent.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Daines v. Vincent Anchor | green | “we grant a trial court broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence and will disturb its ruling only for abuse of discretion.” | 9 |
| 2 | State v. Lanier | green | “the test for harmless error in cases involving an erroneous failure to exclude prior convictions is whether, absent the error, there was a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result for the party.” | 4 |
| 3 | State v. Slowe | green | “inflammatory in the sense that the jury may use the conviction against the defendant for purposes other than determining the defendant's credibility, and therefore would tend to induce the jury to render a verdict outside the relevant substantive evidence.” | 3 |
| 4 | State v. Gomez | green | “the trial court must . . . evaluate and consider the probative value of the proffered testimony, that is, the extent to which the proposed testimony is probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness . . . .” | 3 |
| 5 | Robinson v. Paul Ray Taylor, M.D. | green | “dr. taylor is a convicted felon, convicted of unlawfully selling prescriptions for oxycodone in parking lots.” | 3 |
| 6 | Robinson v. Paul Ray Taylor, M.D. | green | “the critical question in a rule 403 analysis for unfair prejudice is whether the evidence is so prejudicial that the jury will be unable to fairly weigh the evidence.” | 3 |
| 7 | Barrientos ex rel. Nelson v. Jones | green | “we grant a trial court broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence and will disturb its ruling only for abuse of discretion, and then only if the ruling was beyond the limits of reasonability.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.