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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 14 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 Miranda Soto v. Mena Eró.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Miranda Soto v. Mena Eró Anchor | green | “la declaración de un testigo no contradicho sobre un hecho determinado, debe merecer crédito, a no ser que su versión sea físicamente imposible, inverosímil o que por su conducta en la silla testifical se haga indigno de crédito” | 10 |
| 2 | Argüello López v. Argüello García | green | “la declaración de un testigo no contradicho sobre un hecho determinado, debe merecer crédito, a no ser que su versión sea físicamente imposible, inverosímil o que por su conducta en la silla testifical se haga indigno de crédito” | 4 |
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.