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.
4 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 669 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 Montgomery v. State.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Montgomery v. State Anchor | green | “zone of reasonable disagreement.” | 489 |
| 2 | Montgomery v. State | green | “rule 403 favors admissibility of relevant evidence, and the presumption is that relevant evidence will be more probative than prejudicial.” | 105 |
| 3 | Montgomery v. State | green | “within the zone of reasonable disagreement.” | 64 |
| 4 | Hernandez v. State | green | “(1) the probative value of the evidence; (2) the potential to impress the jury in some irrational, yet indelible, way; (3) the time needed to develop the evidence; and (4) the proponent's need for the evidence.” | 11 |
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.