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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 83 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 Hisenaj v. Kuehner.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hisenaj v. Kuehner Anchor | green | “in reviewing a trial court's evidential ruling, an appellate court is limited to examining the decision for abuse of discretion.” | 40 |
| 2 | State v. Marrero | green | “the trial court's ruling 'was so wide of the mark that a manifest denial of justice resulted.” | 30 |
| 3 | State v. Feaster | green | “considerable latitude is afforded a trial court in determining whether to admit evidence, and that determination will be reversed only if it constitutes an abuse of discretion.” | 13 |
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.