context
stringlengths 58
1.13k
| citation_a
dict | citation_b
dict | case_id
int64 475
12.5M
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
We agree with the State that the mere theoretical availability of partial verdicts does not necessitate a further inquiry by the trial court where, for example, no party has requested a partial verdict be taken or the jury does not indicate that it has reached one. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "596 F.2d 76, 82",
"parenthetical": "declining to adopt \"a per se rule that a mistrial is improperly declared whenever the trial judge fails to specifically inquire as to the possibility of a partial verdict\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. DiLapi, 651 F.2d 140, 147 (2d Cir.1981) (noting that “the absence of such an explanation [by the trial court regarding the jury’s right to return a partial verdict] did not deny the appellants any protected right in a case such as this where the jury neither attempted to return a partial verdict nor even asked if it could do so”); United States v. MacQueen, 596 F.2d 76, 82 (2d Cir.1979) (declining to adopt “a per se rule that a mistrial is improperly declared whenever the trial judge fails to specifically inquire as to the possibility of a partial verdict”); Whiteaker v. State, 808 P.2d 270, 277 (Alaska Ct.App.1991) (declining “to place a burden on the trial judge to sua sponte inquire further or perform a special poll of jurors who deliberate on cases involving lesser included offenses”); Speaks v. United States, 617 A.2d 942, 952 (D.C.1992) (noting that imposing a sua sponte obligation on a trial judge to inquire regarding partial verdicts where not requested by defense counsel or indicated by the jury “threatens to disrupt the fine line which a trial judge must tread with respect to partial verdicts”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant's consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict",
"sentence": "But see State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146, 1151-52 (1977), overruled on other grounds, State v. Wardlow, 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527 (1981) (determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant’s consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict)."
} | 3,717,707 | a |
We agree with the State that the mere theoretical availability of partial verdicts does not necessitate a further inquiry by the trial court where, for example, no party has requested a partial verdict be taken or the jury does not indicate that it has reached one. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "596 F.2d 76, 82",
"parenthetical": "declining to adopt \"a per se rule that a mistrial is improperly declared whenever the trial judge fails to specifically inquire as to the possibility of a partial verdict\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. DiLapi, 651 F.2d 140, 147 (2d Cir.1981) (noting that “the absence of such an explanation [by the trial court regarding the jury’s right to return a partial verdict] did not deny the appellants any protected right in a case such as this where the jury neither attempted to return a partial verdict nor even asked if it could do so”); United States v. MacQueen, 596 F.2d 76, 82 (2d Cir.1979) (declining to adopt “a per se rule that a mistrial is improperly declared whenever the trial judge fails to specifically inquire as to the possibility of a partial verdict”); Whiteaker v. State, 808 P.2d 270, 277 (Alaska Ct.App.1991) (declining “to place a burden on the trial judge to sua sponte inquire further or perform a special poll of jurors who deliberate on cases involving lesser included offenses”); Speaks v. United States, 617 A.2d 942, 952 (D.C.1992) (noting that imposing a sua sponte obligation on a trial judge to inquire regarding partial verdicts where not requested by defense counsel or indicated by the jury “threatens to disrupt the fine line which a trial judge must tread with respect to partial verdicts”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant's consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict",
"sentence": "But see State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146, 1151-52 (1977), overruled on other grounds, State v. Wardlow, 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527 (1981) (determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant’s consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict)."
} | 3,717,707 | a |
We agree with the State that the mere theoretical availability of partial verdicts does not necessitate a further inquiry by the trial court where, for example, no party has requested a partial verdict be taken or the jury does not indicate that it has reached one. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "808 P.2d 270, 277",
"parenthetical": "declining \"to place a burden on the trial judge to sua sponte inquire further or perform a special poll of jurors who deliberate on cases involving lesser included offenses\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. DiLapi, 651 F.2d 140, 147 (2d Cir.1981) (noting that “the absence of such an explanation [by the trial court regarding the jury’s right to return a partial verdict] did not deny the appellants any protected right in a case such as this where the jury neither attempted to return a partial verdict nor even asked if it could do so”); United States v. MacQueen, 596 F.2d 76, 82 (2d Cir.1979) (declining to adopt “a per se rule that a mistrial is improperly declared whenever the trial judge fails to specifically inquire as to the possibility of a partial verdict”); Whiteaker v. State, 808 P.2d 270, 277 (Alaska Ct.App.1991) (declining “to place a burden on the trial judge to sua sponte inquire further or perform a special poll of jurors who deliberate on cases involving lesser included offenses”); Speaks v. United States, 617 A.2d 942, 952 (D.C.1992) (noting that imposing a sua sponte obligation on a trial judge to inquire regarding partial verdicts where not requested by defense counsel or indicated by the jury “threatens to disrupt the fine line which a trial judge must tread with respect to partial verdicts”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant's consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict",
"sentence": "But see State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146, 1151-52 (1977), overruled on other grounds, State v. Wardlow, 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527 (1981) (determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant’s consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict)."
} | 3,717,707 | a |
We agree with the State that the mere theoretical availability of partial verdicts does not necessitate a further inquiry by the trial court where, for example, no party has requested a partial verdict be taken or the jury does not indicate that it has reached one. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "808 P.2d 270, 277",
"parenthetical": "declining \"to place a burden on the trial judge to sua sponte inquire further or perform a special poll of jurors who deliberate on cases involving lesser included offenses\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. DiLapi, 651 F.2d 140, 147 (2d Cir.1981) (noting that “the absence of such an explanation [by the trial court regarding the jury’s right to return a partial verdict] did not deny the appellants any protected right in a case such as this where the jury neither attempted to return a partial verdict nor even asked if it could do so”); United States v. MacQueen, 596 F.2d 76, 82 (2d Cir.1979) (declining to adopt “a per se rule that a mistrial is improperly declared whenever the trial judge fails to specifically inquire as to the possibility of a partial verdict”); Whiteaker v. State, 808 P.2d 270, 277 (Alaska Ct.App.1991) (declining “to place a burden on the trial judge to sua sponte inquire further or perform a special poll of jurors who deliberate on cases involving lesser included offenses”); Speaks v. United States, 617 A.2d 942, 952 (D.C.1992) (noting that imposing a sua sponte obligation on a trial judge to inquire regarding partial verdicts where not requested by defense counsel or indicated by the jury “threatens to disrupt the fine line which a trial judge must tread with respect to partial verdicts”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "566 P.2d 1146, 1151-52",
"parenthetical": "determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant's consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict",
"sentence": "But see State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146, 1151-52 (1977), overruled on other grounds, State v. Wardlow, 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527 (1981) (determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant’s consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict)."
} | 3,717,707 | a |
We agree with the State that the mere theoretical availability of partial verdicts does not necessitate a further inquiry by the trial court where, for example, no party has requested a partial verdict be taken or the jury does not indicate that it has reached one. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "808 P.2d 270, 277",
"parenthetical": "declining \"to place a burden on the trial judge to sua sponte inquire further or perform a special poll of jurors who deliberate on cases involving lesser included offenses\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. DiLapi, 651 F.2d 140, 147 (2d Cir.1981) (noting that “the absence of such an explanation [by the trial court regarding the jury’s right to return a partial verdict] did not deny the appellants any protected right in a case such as this where the jury neither attempted to return a partial verdict nor even asked if it could do so”); United States v. MacQueen, 596 F.2d 76, 82 (2d Cir.1979) (declining to adopt “a per se rule that a mistrial is improperly declared whenever the trial judge fails to specifically inquire as to the possibility of a partial verdict”); Whiteaker v. State, 808 P.2d 270, 277 (Alaska Ct.App.1991) (declining “to place a burden on the trial judge to sua sponte inquire further or perform a special poll of jurors who deliberate on cases involving lesser included offenses”); Speaks v. United States, 617 A.2d 942, 952 (D.C.1992) (noting that imposing a sua sponte obligation on a trial judge to inquire regarding partial verdicts where not requested by defense counsel or indicated by the jury “threatens to disrupt the fine line which a trial judge must tread with respect to partial verdicts”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant's consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict",
"sentence": "But see State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146, 1151-52 (1977), overruled on other grounds, State v. Wardlow, 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527 (1981) (determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant’s consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict)."
} | 3,717,707 | a |
We agree with the State that the mere theoretical availability of partial verdicts does not necessitate a further inquiry by the trial court where, for example, no party has requested a partial verdict be taken or the jury does not indicate that it has reached one. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "808 P.2d 270, 277",
"parenthetical": "declining \"to place a burden on the trial judge to sua sponte inquire further or perform a special poll of jurors who deliberate on cases involving lesser included offenses\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. DiLapi, 651 F.2d 140, 147 (2d Cir.1981) (noting that “the absence of such an explanation [by the trial court regarding the jury’s right to return a partial verdict] did not deny the appellants any protected right in a case such as this where the jury neither attempted to return a partial verdict nor even asked if it could do so”); United States v. MacQueen, 596 F.2d 76, 82 (2d Cir.1979) (declining to adopt “a per se rule that a mistrial is improperly declared whenever the trial judge fails to specifically inquire as to the possibility of a partial verdict”); Whiteaker v. State, 808 P.2d 270, 277 (Alaska Ct.App.1991) (declining “to place a burden on the trial judge to sua sponte inquire further or perform a special poll of jurors who deliberate on cases involving lesser included offenses”); Speaks v. United States, 617 A.2d 942, 952 (D.C.1992) (noting that imposing a sua sponte obligation on a trial judge to inquire regarding partial verdicts where not requested by defense counsel or indicated by the jury “threatens to disrupt the fine line which a trial judge must tread with respect to partial verdicts”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant's consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict",
"sentence": "But see State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146, 1151-52 (1977), overruled on other grounds, State v. Wardlow, 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527 (1981) (determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant’s consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict)."
} | 3,717,707 | a |
We agree with the State that the mere theoretical availability of partial verdicts does not necessitate a further inquiry by the trial court where, for example, no party has requested a partial verdict be taken or the jury does not indicate that it has reached one. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "617 A.2d 942, 952",
"parenthetical": "noting that imposing a sua sponte obligation on a trial judge to inquire regarding partial verdicts where not requested by defense counsel or indicated by the jury \"threatens to disrupt the fine line which a trial judge must tread with respect to partial verdicts\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. DiLapi, 651 F.2d 140, 147 (2d Cir.1981) (noting that “the absence of such an explanation [by the trial court regarding the jury’s right to return a partial verdict] did not deny the appellants any protected right in a case such as this where the jury neither attempted to return a partial verdict nor even asked if it could do so”); United States v. MacQueen, 596 F.2d 76, 82 (2d Cir.1979) (declining to adopt “a per se rule that a mistrial is improperly declared whenever the trial judge fails to specifically inquire as to the possibility of a partial verdict”); Whiteaker v. State, 808 P.2d 270, 277 (Alaska Ct.App.1991) (declining “to place a burden on the trial judge to sua sponte inquire further or perform a special poll of jurors who deliberate on cases involving lesser included offenses”); Speaks v. United States, 617 A.2d 942, 952 (D.C.1992) (noting that imposing a sua sponte obligation on a trial judge to inquire regarding partial verdicts where not requested by defense counsel or indicated by the jury “threatens to disrupt the fine line which a trial judge must tread with respect to partial verdicts”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant's consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict",
"sentence": "But see State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146, 1151-52 (1977), overruled on other grounds, State v. Wardlow, 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527 (1981) (determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant’s consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict)."
} | 3,717,707 | a |
We agree with the State that the mere theoretical availability of partial verdicts does not necessitate a further inquiry by the trial court where, for example, no party has requested a partial verdict be taken or the jury does not indicate that it has reached one. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "566 P.2d 1146, 1151-52",
"parenthetical": "determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant's consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict",
"sentence": "But see State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146, 1151-52 (1977), overruled on other grounds, State v. Wardlow, 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527 (1981) (determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant’s consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "617 A.2d 942, 952",
"parenthetical": "noting that imposing a sua sponte obligation on a trial judge to inquire regarding partial verdicts where not requested by defense counsel or indicated by the jury \"threatens to disrupt the fine line which a trial judge must tread with respect to partial verdicts\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. DiLapi, 651 F.2d 140, 147 (2d Cir.1981) (noting that “the absence of such an explanation [by the trial court regarding the jury’s right to return a partial verdict] did not deny the appellants any protected right in a case such as this where the jury neither attempted to return a partial verdict nor even asked if it could do so”); United States v. MacQueen, 596 F.2d 76, 82 (2d Cir.1979) (declining to adopt “a per se rule that a mistrial is improperly declared whenever the trial judge fails to specifically inquire as to the possibility of a partial verdict”); Whiteaker v. State, 808 P.2d 270, 277 (Alaska Ct.App.1991) (declining “to place a burden on the trial judge to sua sponte inquire further or perform a special poll of jurors who deliberate on cases involving lesser included offenses”); Speaks v. United States, 617 A.2d 942, 952 (D.C.1992) (noting that imposing a sua sponte obligation on a trial judge to inquire regarding partial verdicts where not requested by defense counsel or indicated by the jury “threatens to disrupt the fine line which a trial judge must tread with respect to partial verdicts”)."
} | 3,717,707 | b |
We agree with the State that the mere theoretical availability of partial verdicts does not necessitate a further inquiry by the trial court where, for example, no party has requested a partial verdict be taken or the jury does not indicate that it has reached one. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "617 A.2d 942, 952",
"parenthetical": "noting that imposing a sua sponte obligation on a trial judge to inquire regarding partial verdicts where not requested by defense counsel or indicated by the jury \"threatens to disrupt the fine line which a trial judge must tread with respect to partial verdicts\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. DiLapi, 651 F.2d 140, 147 (2d Cir.1981) (noting that “the absence of such an explanation [by the trial court regarding the jury’s right to return a partial verdict] did not deny the appellants any protected right in a case such as this where the jury neither attempted to return a partial verdict nor even asked if it could do so”); United States v. MacQueen, 596 F.2d 76, 82 (2d Cir.1979) (declining to adopt “a per se rule that a mistrial is improperly declared whenever the trial judge fails to specifically inquire as to the possibility of a partial verdict”); Whiteaker v. State, 808 P.2d 270, 277 (Alaska Ct.App.1991) (declining “to place a burden on the trial judge to sua sponte inquire further or perform a special poll of jurors who deliberate on cases involving lesser included offenses”); Speaks v. United States, 617 A.2d 942, 952 (D.C.1992) (noting that imposing a sua sponte obligation on a trial judge to inquire regarding partial verdicts where not requested by defense counsel or indicated by the jury “threatens to disrupt the fine line which a trial judge must tread with respect to partial verdicts”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant's consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict",
"sentence": "But see State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146, 1151-52 (1977), overruled on other grounds, State v. Wardlow, 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527 (1981) (determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant’s consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict)."
} | 3,717,707 | a |
We agree with the State that the mere theoretical availability of partial verdicts does not necessitate a further inquiry by the trial court where, for example, no party has requested a partial verdict be taken or the jury does not indicate that it has reached one. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "617 A.2d 942, 952",
"parenthetical": "noting that imposing a sua sponte obligation on a trial judge to inquire regarding partial verdicts where not requested by defense counsel or indicated by the jury \"threatens to disrupt the fine line which a trial judge must tread with respect to partial verdicts\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. DiLapi, 651 F.2d 140, 147 (2d Cir.1981) (noting that “the absence of such an explanation [by the trial court regarding the jury’s right to return a partial verdict] did not deny the appellants any protected right in a case such as this where the jury neither attempted to return a partial verdict nor even asked if it could do so”); United States v. MacQueen, 596 F.2d 76, 82 (2d Cir.1979) (declining to adopt “a per se rule that a mistrial is improperly declared whenever the trial judge fails to specifically inquire as to the possibility of a partial verdict”); Whiteaker v. State, 808 P.2d 270, 277 (Alaska Ct.App.1991) (declining “to place a burden on the trial judge to sua sponte inquire further or perform a special poll of jurors who deliberate on cases involving lesser included offenses”); Speaks v. United States, 617 A.2d 942, 952 (D.C.1992) (noting that imposing a sua sponte obligation on a trial judge to inquire regarding partial verdicts where not requested by defense counsel or indicated by the jury “threatens to disrupt the fine line which a trial judge must tread with respect to partial verdicts”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant's consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict",
"sentence": "But see State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146, 1151-52 (1977), overruled on other grounds, State v. Wardlow, 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527 (1981) (determining that no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial without a defendant’s consent exists without the trial judge inquiring whether the jury reached a partial verdict)."
} | 3,717,707 | a |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2",
"parenthetical": "\"[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "502 U.S. 346, 356",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | b |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533",
"parenthetical": "\"[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "502 U.S. 346, 356",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | b |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "502 U.S. 346, 356",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | b |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "554 U.S. 353, 376",
"parenthetical": "\"[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "502 U.S. 346, 356",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | b |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93",
"parenthetical": "\"[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "502 U.S. 346, 356",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | b |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "502 U.S. 346, 356",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | b |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "562 U.S. 390, 390",
"parenthetical": "\"Today's opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to 'standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,' when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "502 U.S. 346, 356",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | b |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2",
"parenthetical": "\"[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "112 S.Ct. 736, 743",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | b |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "112 S.Ct. 736, 743",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533",
"parenthetical": "\"[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | a |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "112 S.Ct. 736, 743",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | b |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "112 S.Ct. 736, 743",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "554 U.S. 353, 376",
"parenthetical": "\"[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | a |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93",
"parenthetical": "\"[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "112 S.Ct. 736, 743",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | b |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "112 S.Ct. 736, 743",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | a |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "112 S.Ct. 736, 743",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "562 U.S. 390, 390",
"parenthetical": "\"Today's opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to 'standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,' when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | a |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2",
"parenthetical": "\"[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | b |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533",
"parenthetical": "\"[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | b |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | b |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "554 U.S. 353, 376",
"parenthetical": "\"[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | b |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93",
"parenthetical": "\"[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | a |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | a |
The statements at issue in the present case are also non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because they were not "procured for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "562 U.S. 390, 390",
"parenthetical": "\"Today's opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to 'standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,' when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.\"",
"sentence": "Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 392, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (emphasis added); see id., (“In making the primary purpose determination, standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.”); see also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.”); cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 312, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (“[MJedical reports created for treatment purposes ... would not be testimonial under our decision today.”) (citations omitted); Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2692-93, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (“[S]ince only testimonial statements are excluded by the Confrontation Clause[,] [statements to | nfriends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation [by women in abusive relationships], and statements to physicians in the course of receiving treatment would be excluded, if at all, only by hearsay rules[.]”); Bryant, 562 U.S. at 390, 131 S.Ct. at 1174 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Today’s opinion [a revisionist narrative in which reliability continues to guide our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence] adopts ... the discredited logic of- White [ ] ... [when it] announces that in future cases it will look to ‘standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable,’ when deciding whether a statement is testimonial.”). Although the state has evidently not produced any proof of the victim’s demise, unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite for introducing the statements as a matter of either the hearsay exception in La. C.E. art. 803(4), or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
} | 6,869,098 | a |
Hospice has not alleged any conduct on the part of Blue Cross which relates to the administration of the plan, to the processing of any covered claim, or which impinges on any employee's ERISA rights. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "724 F.Supp. 732, 739",
"parenthetical": "state common law claims for misrepresentation preempted by ERISA where misrepresentation is related to entitlements under employee health benefit plan",
"sentence": "See Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 865 F.2d 1237, 1243-44 (11th Cir.1989) (tort claim which had no effect on the administration of an employee benefit plan not preempted); Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1404 (9th Cir.1988) (“ERISA preempts only those state law claims that arise out of the administration of a covered plan”); but see St. Mary Medical Center v. Cristiano, 724 F.Supp. 732, 739 (C.D.Cal.1989) (state common law claims for misrepresentation preempted by ERISA where misrepresentation is related to entitlements under employee health benefit plan)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "865 F.2d 1237, 1243-44",
"parenthetical": "tort claim which had no effect on the administration of an employee benefit plan not preempted",
"sentence": "See Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 865 F.2d 1237, 1243-44 (11th Cir.1989) (tort claim which had no effect on the administration of an employee benefit plan not preempted); Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1404 (9th Cir.1988) (“ERISA preempts only those state law claims that arise out of the administration of a covered plan”); but see St. Mary Medical Center v. Cristiano, 724 F.Supp. 732, 739 (C.D.Cal.1989) (state common law claims for misrepresentation preempted by ERISA where misrepresentation is related to entitlements under employee health benefit plan)."
} | 10,524,385 | b |
Hospice has not alleged any conduct on the part of Blue Cross which relates to the administration of the plan, to the processing of any covered claim, or which impinges on any employee's ERISA rights. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "724 F.Supp. 732, 739",
"parenthetical": "state common law claims for misrepresentation preempted by ERISA where misrepresentation is related to entitlements under employee health benefit plan",
"sentence": "See Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 865 F.2d 1237, 1243-44 (11th Cir.1989) (tort claim which had no effect on the administration of an employee benefit plan not preempted); Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1404 (9th Cir.1988) (“ERISA preempts only those state law claims that arise out of the administration of a covered plan”); but see St. Mary Medical Center v. Cristiano, 724 F.Supp. 732, 739 (C.D.Cal.1989) (state common law claims for misrepresentation preempted by ERISA where misrepresentation is related to entitlements under employee health benefit plan)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "861 F.2d 1389, 1404",
"parenthetical": "\"ERISA preempts only those state law claims that arise out of the administration of a covered plan\"",
"sentence": "See Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 865 F.2d 1237, 1243-44 (11th Cir.1989) (tort claim which had no effect on the administration of an employee benefit plan not preempted); Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1404 (9th Cir.1988) (“ERISA preempts only those state law claims that arise out of the administration of a covered plan”); but see St. Mary Medical Center v. Cristiano, 724 F.Supp. 732, 739 (C.D.Cal.1989) (state common law claims for misrepresentation preempted by ERISA where misrepresentation is related to entitlements under employee health benefit plan)."
} | 10,524,385 | b |
Once James' term of enlistment ended, he no longer was entitled to pay under 37 U.S.C. SS 204, because he was no longer a service member. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "424 U.S. 402, 402",
"parenthetical": "\"The established rule is that one is not entitled to the benefit of a position until he has been duly appointed to it.\"",
"sentence": "See Testan, 424 U.S. at 402, 96 S.Ct. 948 (“The established rule is that one is not entitled to the benefit of a position until he has been duly appointed to it.”); see also Dodson v. United States, 988 F.2d 1199, 1208 (Fed.Cir.1993) (“[A]n enlisted serviceman who has been improperly discharged is entitled to recover pay and allowances only to the date on which his term of enlistment would otherwise have expired had he not been so discharged.”). Thus, James could not have relied on § 204 as a money-mandating statute supporting Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "988 F.2d 1199, 1208",
"parenthetical": "\"[A]n enlisted serviceman who has been improperly discharged is entitled to recover pay and allowances only to the date on which his term of enlistment would otherwise have expired had he not been so discharged.\"",
"sentence": "See Testan, 424 U.S. at 402, 96 S.Ct. 948 (“The established rule is that one is not entitled to the benefit of a position until he has been duly appointed to it.”); see also Dodson v. United States, 988 F.2d 1199, 1208 (Fed.Cir.1993) (“[A]n enlisted serviceman who has been improperly discharged is entitled to recover pay and allowances only to the date on which his term of enlistment would otherwise have expired had he not been so discharged.”). Thus, James could not have relied on § 204 as a money-mandating statute supporting Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims."
} | 1,615,471 | a |
Once James' term of enlistment ended, he no longer was entitled to pay under 37 U.S.C. SS 204, because he was no longer a service member. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "988 F.2d 1199, 1208",
"parenthetical": "\"[A]n enlisted serviceman who has been improperly discharged is entitled to recover pay and allowances only to the date on which his term of enlistment would otherwise have expired had he not been so discharged.\"",
"sentence": "See Testan, 424 U.S. at 402, 96 S.Ct. 948 (“The established rule is that one is not entitled to the benefit of a position until he has been duly appointed to it.”); see also Dodson v. United States, 988 F.2d 1199, 1208 (Fed.Cir.1993) (“[A]n enlisted serviceman who has been improperly discharged is entitled to recover pay and allowances only to the date on which his term of enlistment would otherwise have expired had he not been so discharged.”). Thus, James could not have relied on § 204 as a money-mandating statute supporting Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"The established rule is that one is not entitled to the benefit of a position until he has been duly appointed to it.\"",
"sentence": "See Testan, 424 U.S. at 402, 96 S.Ct. 948 (“The established rule is that one is not entitled to the benefit of a position until he has been duly appointed to it.”); see also Dodson v. United States, 988 F.2d 1199, 1208 (Fed.Cir.1993) (“[A]n enlisted serviceman who has been improperly discharged is entitled to recover pay and allowances only to the date on which his term of enlistment would otherwise have expired had he not been so discharged.”). Thus, James could not have relied on § 204 as a money-mandating statute supporting Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims."
} | 1,615,471 | b |
Defendants argue that Actavis is "limited to reverse payment settlements in which the branded company pays cash to the generic company." Reply 5 (emphasis in original). Two district courts have granted motions to dismiss in post-Actavis cases on the grounds that the non-monetary settlement terms are not "payments." | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "2014 WL 4368924, at *10",
"parenthetical": "\"Actavis should be applied only to cash settlements, or to their very close analogues.\"",
"sentence": "See In re Loestrin, 2014 WL 4368924, at *10 (“Actavis should be applied only to cash settlements, or to their very close analogues.”); see also In re Lamictal, 2014 WL 282755, at *9 (granting motion to dismiss antitrust claims because a reverse payment must be monetary). These cases are not persuasive because both turn on the court’s concern that the value of “a non-cash settlement, particularly one that is multifaceted and complex (like the arrangement here), is almost impossible to measure.” Id. at *9."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2014 WL 282755, at *9",
"parenthetical": "granting motion to dismiss antitrust claims because a reverse payment must be monetary",
"sentence": "See In re Loestrin, 2014 WL 4368924, at *10 (“Actavis should be applied only to cash settlements, or to their very close analogues.”); see also In re Lamictal, 2014 WL 282755, at *9 (granting motion to dismiss antitrust claims because a reverse payment must be monetary). These cases are not persuasive because both turn on the court’s concern that the value of “a non-cash settlement, particularly one that is multifaceted and complex (like the arrangement here), is almost impossible to measure.” Id. at *9."
} | 4,226,482 | a |
Plaintiff alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duty when they engaged in actions that deprived plaintiff and other union members of their benefits under the Health Plan. In order to state a claim under ERISA, plaintiff must allege some injury-in-fact. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "504 U.S. 555, 560",
"parenthetical": "plaintiff must show an \"invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent.\"",
"sentence": "Bendaoud v. Hodgson, 578 F.Supp.2d 257, 263 (D.Mass.2008) (noting that an ERISA plan participant asserting rights “on behalf of the plan” must assert an injury suffered); see, e.g. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (plaintiff must show an “invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent.”) Here, plaintiff alleges that co-defendants have deprived plaintiff of his “property and benefits” and asks this Court to grant relief so that plaintiff may “obtain the redress of his rights.”"
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "578 F.Supp.2d 257, 263",
"parenthetical": "noting that an ERISA plan participant asserting rights \"on behalf of the plan\" must assert an injury suffered",
"sentence": "Bendaoud v. Hodgson, 578 F.Supp.2d 257, 263 (D.Mass.2008) (noting that an ERISA plan participant asserting rights “on behalf of the plan” must assert an injury suffered); see, e.g. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (plaintiff must show an “invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent.”) Here, plaintiff alleges that co-defendants have deprived plaintiff of his “property and benefits” and asks this Court to grant relief so that plaintiff may “obtain the redress of his rights.”"
} | 4,264,098 | b |
Plaintiff alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duty when they engaged in actions that deprived plaintiff and other union members of their benefits under the Health Plan. In order to state a claim under ERISA, plaintiff must allege some injury-in-fact. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "578 F.Supp.2d 257, 263",
"parenthetical": "noting that an ERISA plan participant asserting rights \"on behalf of the plan\" must assert an injury suffered",
"sentence": "Bendaoud v. Hodgson, 578 F.Supp.2d 257, 263 (D.Mass.2008) (noting that an ERISA plan participant asserting rights “on behalf of the plan” must assert an injury suffered); see, e.g. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (plaintiff must show an “invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent.”) Here, plaintiff alleges that co-defendants have deprived plaintiff of his “property and benefits” and asks this Court to grant relief so that plaintiff may “obtain the redress of his rights.”"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "plaintiff must show an \"invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent.\"",
"sentence": "Bendaoud v. Hodgson, 578 F.Supp.2d 257, 263 (D.Mass.2008) (noting that an ERISA plan participant asserting rights “on behalf of the plan” must assert an injury suffered); see, e.g. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (plaintiff must show an “invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent.”) Here, plaintiff alleges that co-defendants have deprived plaintiff of his “property and benefits” and asks this Court to grant relief so that plaintiff may “obtain the redress of his rights.”"
} | 4,264,098 | a |
Plaintiff alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duty when they engaged in actions that deprived plaintiff and other union members of their benefits under the Health Plan. In order to state a claim under ERISA, plaintiff must allege some injury-in-fact. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "plaintiff must show an \"invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent.\"",
"sentence": "Bendaoud v. Hodgson, 578 F.Supp.2d 257, 263 (D.Mass.2008) (noting that an ERISA plan participant asserting rights “on behalf of the plan” must assert an injury suffered); see, e.g. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (plaintiff must show an “invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent.”) Here, plaintiff alleges that co-defendants have deprived plaintiff of his “property and benefits” and asks this Court to grant relief so that plaintiff may “obtain the redress of his rights.”"
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "578 F.Supp.2d 257, 263",
"parenthetical": "noting that an ERISA plan participant asserting rights \"on behalf of the plan\" must assert an injury suffered",
"sentence": "Bendaoud v. Hodgson, 578 F.Supp.2d 257, 263 (D.Mass.2008) (noting that an ERISA plan participant asserting rights “on behalf of the plan” must assert an injury suffered); see, e.g. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (plaintiff must show an “invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent.”) Here, plaintiff alleges that co-defendants have deprived plaintiff of his “property and benefits” and asks this Court to grant relief so that plaintiff may “obtain the redress of his rights.”"
} | 4,264,098 | b |
As previously discussed, Orwat has succeeded in establishing for summary judgment purposes only an Eighth Amendment violation against Padula. His claims against the remaining Defendants under the MCRA fail because Orwat has not established that those Defendants deprived him of any rights. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "69 F.Supp.2d 177, 202",
"parenthetical": "inmate's MCRA claim actionable where inmate had sufficiently alleged a First Amendment violation when he claimed that defendant filed false disciplinary report in retaliation for inmate's filing grievance",
"sentence": "Cf. Shabazz v. Cole, 69 F.Supp.2d 177, 202 (D.Mass., 1999) (inmate’s MCRA claim actionable where inmate had sufficiently alleged a First Amendment violation when he claimed that defendant filed false disciplinary report in retaliation for inmate’s filing grievance); Murphy v. Cruz, 52 Mass.App.Ct. 314, 753 N.E.2d 150 (2001) (inmate held to have sufficiently alleged a claim for exercise of First Amendment rights as basis for MCRA claim)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "55 Mass.App.Ct. 658, 664",
"parenthetical": "MCRA claim fails where inmate fails to establish constitutional violation",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Columbus v. Biggio, 76 F.Supp.2d 43, 54 (D.Mass.1999); Jiles v. Dep’t of Correction, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 658, 664, 774 N.E.2d 150, 156 (2002) (MCRA claim fails where inmate fails to establish constitutional violation)."
} | 9,178,047 | b |
As previously discussed, Orwat has succeeded in establishing for summary judgment purposes only an Eighth Amendment violation against Padula. His claims against the remaining Defendants under the MCRA fail because Orwat has not established that those Defendants deprived him of any rights. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "inmate held to have sufficiently alleged a claim for exercise of First Amendment rights as basis for MCRA claim",
"sentence": "Cf. Shabazz v. Cole, 69 F.Supp.2d 177, 202 (D.Mass., 1999) (inmate’s MCRA claim actionable where inmate had sufficiently alleged a First Amendment violation when he claimed that defendant filed false disciplinary report in retaliation for inmate’s filing grievance); Murphy v. Cruz, 52 Mass.App.Ct. 314, 753 N.E.2d 150 (2001) (inmate held to have sufficiently alleged a claim for exercise of First Amendment rights as basis for MCRA claim)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "55 Mass.App.Ct. 658, 664",
"parenthetical": "MCRA claim fails where inmate fails to establish constitutional violation",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Columbus v. Biggio, 76 F.Supp.2d 43, 54 (D.Mass.1999); Jiles v. Dep’t of Correction, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 658, 664, 774 N.E.2d 150, 156 (2002) (MCRA claim fails where inmate fails to establish constitutional violation)."
} | 9,178,047 | b |
As previously discussed, Orwat has succeeded in establishing for summary judgment purposes only an Eighth Amendment violation against Padula. His claims against the remaining Defendants under the MCRA fail because Orwat has not established that those Defendants deprived him of any rights. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "55 Mass.App.Ct. 658, 664",
"parenthetical": "MCRA claim fails where inmate fails to establish constitutional violation",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Columbus v. Biggio, 76 F.Supp.2d 43, 54 (D.Mass.1999); Jiles v. Dep’t of Correction, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 658, 664, 774 N.E.2d 150, 156 (2002) (MCRA claim fails where inmate fails to establish constitutional violation)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "inmate held to have sufficiently alleged a claim for exercise of First Amendment rights as basis for MCRA claim",
"sentence": "Cf. Shabazz v. Cole, 69 F.Supp.2d 177, 202 (D.Mass., 1999) (inmate’s MCRA claim actionable where inmate had sufficiently alleged a First Amendment violation when he claimed that defendant filed false disciplinary report in retaliation for inmate’s filing grievance); Murphy v. Cruz, 52 Mass.App.Ct. 314, 753 N.E.2d 150 (2001) (inmate held to have sufficiently alleged a claim for exercise of First Amendment rights as basis for MCRA claim)."
} | 9,178,047 | a |
As previously discussed, Orwat has succeeded in establishing for summary judgment purposes only an Eighth Amendment violation against Padula. His claims against the remaining Defendants under the MCRA fail because Orwat has not established that those Defendants deprived him of any rights. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "69 F.Supp.2d 177, 202",
"parenthetical": "inmate's MCRA claim actionable where inmate had sufficiently alleged a First Amendment violation when he claimed that defendant filed false disciplinary report in retaliation for inmate's filing grievance",
"sentence": "Cf. Shabazz v. Cole, 69 F.Supp.2d 177, 202 (D.Mass., 1999) (inmate’s MCRA claim actionable where inmate had sufficiently alleged a First Amendment violation when he claimed that defendant filed false disciplinary report in retaliation for inmate’s filing grievance); Murphy v. Cruz, 52 Mass.App.Ct. 314, 753 N.E.2d 150 (2001) (inmate held to have sufficiently alleged a claim for exercise of First Amendment rights as basis for MCRA claim)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "774 N.E.2d 150, 156",
"parenthetical": "MCRA claim fails where inmate fails to establish constitutional violation",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Columbus v. Biggio, 76 F.Supp.2d 43, 54 (D.Mass.1999); Jiles v. Dep’t of Correction, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 658, 664, 774 N.E.2d 150, 156 (2002) (MCRA claim fails where inmate fails to establish constitutional violation)."
} | 9,178,047 | b |
As previously discussed, Orwat has succeeded in establishing for summary judgment purposes only an Eighth Amendment violation against Padula. His claims against the remaining Defendants under the MCRA fail because Orwat has not established that those Defendants deprived him of any rights. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "774 N.E.2d 150, 156",
"parenthetical": "MCRA claim fails where inmate fails to establish constitutional violation",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Columbus v. Biggio, 76 F.Supp.2d 43, 54 (D.Mass.1999); Jiles v. Dep’t of Correction, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 658, 664, 774 N.E.2d 150, 156 (2002) (MCRA claim fails where inmate fails to establish constitutional violation)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "inmate held to have sufficiently alleged a claim for exercise of First Amendment rights as basis for MCRA claim",
"sentence": "Cf. Shabazz v. Cole, 69 F.Supp.2d 177, 202 (D.Mass., 1999) (inmate’s MCRA claim actionable where inmate had sufficiently alleged a First Amendment violation when he claimed that defendant filed false disciplinary report in retaliation for inmate’s filing grievance); Murphy v. Cruz, 52 Mass.App.Ct. 314, 753 N.E.2d 150 (2001) (inmate held to have sufficiently alleged a claim for exercise of First Amendment rights as basis for MCRA claim)."
} | 9,178,047 | a |
As previously discussed, Orwat has succeeded in establishing for summary judgment purposes only an Eighth Amendment violation against Padula. His claims against the remaining Defendants under the MCRA fail because Orwat has not established that those Defendants deprived him of any rights. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "inmate held to have sufficiently alleged a claim for exercise of First Amendment rights as basis for MCRA claim",
"sentence": "Cf. Shabazz v. Cole, 69 F.Supp.2d 177, 202 (D.Mass., 1999) (inmate’s MCRA claim actionable where inmate had sufficiently alleged a First Amendment violation when he claimed that defendant filed false disciplinary report in retaliation for inmate’s filing grievance); Murphy v. Cruz, 52 Mass.App.Ct. 314, 753 N.E.2d 150 (2001) (inmate held to have sufficiently alleged a claim for exercise of First Amendment rights as basis for MCRA claim)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "774 N.E.2d 150, 156",
"parenthetical": "MCRA claim fails where inmate fails to establish constitutional violation",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Columbus v. Biggio, 76 F.Supp.2d 43, 54 (D.Mass.1999); Jiles v. Dep’t of Correction, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 658, 664, 774 N.E.2d 150, 156 (2002) (MCRA claim fails where inmate fails to establish constitutional violation)."
} | 9,178,047 | b |
Although it is true that the analytical processes for determining qualifying crimes under the ACCA and SS 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the INA are similar, the mere fact that a statute is not categorically a violent felony does not preclude it from categorically qualifying as a CIMT. By definition, the category of crimes that qualify as a CIMT is considerably broader than that covered by the ACCA. Indeed, the CIMT category of crimes contains myriad offenses that involve no physical-injury element and therefore could not qualify under the ACCA. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "3 I. & N. Dec. 272, 273",
"parenthetical": "concluding that \"maliciously and wantonly injuring] and destroying] certain personal property of another\" by, in that case, killing another man's hogs, was a CIMT",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Sema, 20 I. & N. Dec. 579, 585 n. 10 (BIA 1992) (noting that knowledge coupled with intent to harm property can constitute a CIMT); cf. M — , 3 I. & N. Dec. 272, 273 (BIA 1948) (concluding that “maliciously and wantonly injuring] and destroying] certain personal property of another” by, in that case, killing another man’s hogs, was a CIMT). Accordingly, the possibility that the Washington statute could punish wanton or willful conduct that creates a risk only to property is not alone enough to bring a non-CIMT offense within the statutory terms."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "570 F.3d 690, 690, 692",
"parenthetical": "concluding that fraudulent use of a Social Security number is a CIMT",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Serra-to-Soto, 570 F.3d at 690, 692 (concluding that fraudulent use of a Social Security number is a CIMT). Moreover, unlike the ACCA, that an offense involves risk only to property is not dispositive to the categorical analysis as applied under the INA."
} | 3,889,927 | b |
Although it is true that the analytical processes for determining qualifying crimes under the ACCA and SS 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the INA are similar, the mere fact that a statute is not categorically a violent felony does not preclude it from categorically qualifying as a CIMT. By definition, the category of crimes that qualify as a CIMT is considerably broader than that covered by the ACCA. Indeed, the CIMT category of crimes contains myriad offenses that involve no physical-injury element and therefore could not qualify under the ACCA. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "3 I. & N. Dec. 272, 273",
"parenthetical": "concluding that \"maliciously and wantonly injuring] and destroying] certain personal property of another\" by, in that case, killing another man's hogs, was a CIMT",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Sema, 20 I. & N. Dec. 579, 585 n. 10 (BIA 1992) (noting that knowledge coupled with intent to harm property can constitute a CIMT); cf. M — , 3 I. & N. Dec. 272, 273 (BIA 1948) (concluding that “maliciously and wantonly injuring] and destroying] certain personal property of another” by, in that case, killing another man’s hogs, was a CIMT). Accordingly, the possibility that the Washington statute could punish wanton or willful conduct that creates a risk only to property is not alone enough to bring a non-CIMT offense within the statutory terms."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that knowledge coupled with intent to harm property can constitute a CIMT",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Sema, 20 I. & N. Dec. 579, 585 n. 10 (BIA 1992) (noting that knowledge coupled with intent to harm property can constitute a CIMT); cf. M — , 3 I. & N. Dec. 272, 273 (BIA 1948) (concluding that “maliciously and wantonly injuring] and destroying] certain personal property of another” by, in that case, killing another man’s hogs, was a CIMT). Accordingly, the possibility that the Washington statute could punish wanton or willful conduct that creates a risk only to property is not alone enough to bring a non-CIMT offense within the statutory terms."
} | 3,889,927 | b |
We have held that an evidentiary hearing is required "when the defendant alleges sufficient facts which, if proven, would justify relief." In light of the record as a whole, however, it is clear that any error in failing to hold a hearing was harmless. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "474 F.2d 1197, 1197",
"parenthetical": "trial court's refusal to allow defendant to conduct voir dire of allegedly tainted witness, although erroneous, was harmless error where entire record demonstrated ample additional evidence of guilt",
"sentence": "See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see also United States v. Parker, supra, 722 F.2d at 183 (error harmless where examination of entire record reveals that lack of error would not have changed verdict); United States v. Lane, 693 F.2d 385, 390 (5th Cir.1982) (to conclude error harmless beyond reasonable doubt, appellate court must examine entire record); accord United States v. Williams, 616 F.2d 759, 761 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 857, 101 S.Ct. 156, 66 L.Ed.2d 72 (1980); cf. United States v. Marder, supra, 474 F.2d at 1197 (trial court’s refusal to allow defendant to conduct voir dire of allegedly tainted witness, although erroneous, was harmless error where entire record demonstrated ample additional evidence of guilt)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "722 F.2d 183, 183",
"parenthetical": "error harmless where examination of entire record reveals that lack of error would not have changed verdict",
"sentence": "See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see also United States v. Parker, supra, 722 F.2d at 183 (error harmless where examination of entire record reveals that lack of error would not have changed verdict); United States v. Lane, 693 F.2d 385, 390 (5th Cir.1982) (to conclude error harmless beyond reasonable doubt, appellate court must examine entire record); accord United States v. Williams, 616 F.2d 759, 761 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 857, 101 S.Ct. 156, 66 L.Ed.2d 72 (1980); cf. United States v. Marder, supra, 474 F.2d at 1197 (trial court’s refusal to allow defendant to conduct voir dire of allegedly tainted witness, although erroneous, was harmless error where entire record demonstrated ample additional evidence of guilt)."
} | 661,663 | b |
We have held that an evidentiary hearing is required "when the defendant alleges sufficient facts which, if proven, would justify relief." In light of the record as a whole, however, it is clear that any error in failing to hold a hearing was harmless. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "474 F.2d 1197, 1197",
"parenthetical": "trial court's refusal to allow defendant to conduct voir dire of allegedly tainted witness, although erroneous, was harmless error where entire record demonstrated ample additional evidence of guilt",
"sentence": "See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see also United States v. Parker, supra, 722 F.2d at 183 (error harmless where examination of entire record reveals that lack of error would not have changed verdict); United States v. Lane, 693 F.2d 385, 390 (5th Cir.1982) (to conclude error harmless beyond reasonable doubt, appellate court must examine entire record); accord United States v. Williams, 616 F.2d 759, 761 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 857, 101 S.Ct. 156, 66 L.Ed.2d 72 (1980); cf. United States v. Marder, supra, 474 F.2d at 1197 (trial court’s refusal to allow defendant to conduct voir dire of allegedly tainted witness, although erroneous, was harmless error where entire record demonstrated ample additional evidence of guilt)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "693 F.2d 385, 390",
"parenthetical": "to conclude error harmless beyond reasonable doubt, appellate court must examine entire record",
"sentence": "See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see also United States v. Parker, supra, 722 F.2d at 183 (error harmless where examination of entire record reveals that lack of error would not have changed verdict); United States v. Lane, 693 F.2d 385, 390 (5th Cir.1982) (to conclude error harmless beyond reasonable doubt, appellate court must examine entire record); accord United States v. Williams, 616 F.2d 759, 761 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 857, 101 S.Ct. 156, 66 L.Ed.2d 72 (1980); cf. United States v. Marder, supra, 474 F.2d at 1197 (trial court’s refusal to allow defendant to conduct voir dire of allegedly tainted witness, although erroneous, was harmless error where entire record demonstrated ample additional evidence of guilt)."
} | 661,663 | b |
. The Court also found motive to be relevant to Plaintiffs' facial challenges, which Defendants do not contest at this'stage of the litigation. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "530 U.S. 290, 317",
"parenthetical": "noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged",
"sentence": "See Tartikov, 915 F.Supp.2d at 611-14; see also Santa Fe Independent Sch. Distr. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 317, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000) (noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged); Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss, 294 F.3d 415, 425 (2d Cir.2002) (same); cf. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., No. 07-CV-881, 2008 WL 294294, at *19 n. 26 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) (noting that a facial challenge may be based on the theory that an ordinance was \"passed with discriminatory intent”); Nev. Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Clark County, 565 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1187 (D.Nev.2008) (noting that while \"legislative motive is irrelevant to a facial challenge ... evidence of some intent to disadvantage a class of people makes the determination of the basis for the overt disparate treatment much easier”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that a facial challenge may be based on the theory that an ordinance was \"passed with discriminatory intent\"",
"sentence": "See Tartikov, 915 F.Supp.2d at 611-14; see also Santa Fe Independent Sch. Distr. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 317, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000) (noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged); Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss, 294 F.3d 415, 425 (2d Cir.2002) (same); cf. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., No. 07-CV-881, 2008 WL 294294, at *19 n. 26 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) (noting that a facial challenge may be based on the theory that an ordinance was \"passed with discriminatory intent”); Nev. Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Clark County, 565 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1187 (D.Nev.2008) (noting that while \"legislative motive is irrelevant to a facial challenge ... evidence of some intent to disadvantage a class of people makes the determination of the basis for the overt disparate treatment much easier”)."
} | 4,194,334 | a |
. The Court also found motive to be relevant to Plaintiffs' facial challenges, which Defendants do not contest at this'stage of the litigation. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "530 U.S. 290, 317",
"parenthetical": "noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged",
"sentence": "See Tartikov, 915 F.Supp.2d at 611-14; see also Santa Fe Independent Sch. Distr. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 317, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000) (noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged); Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss, 294 F.3d 415, 425 (2d Cir.2002) (same); cf. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., No. 07-CV-881, 2008 WL 294294, at *19 n. 26 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) (noting that a facial challenge may be based on the theory that an ordinance was \"passed with discriminatory intent”); Nev. Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Clark County, 565 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1187 (D.Nev.2008) (noting that while \"legislative motive is irrelevant to a facial challenge ... evidence of some intent to disadvantage a class of people makes the determination of the basis for the overt disparate treatment much easier”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "565 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1187",
"parenthetical": "noting that while \"legislative motive is irrelevant to a facial challenge ... evidence of some intent to disadvantage a class of people makes the determination of the basis for the overt disparate treatment much easier\"",
"sentence": "See Tartikov, 915 F.Supp.2d at 611-14; see also Santa Fe Independent Sch. Distr. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 317, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000) (noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged); Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss, 294 F.3d 415, 425 (2d Cir.2002) (same); cf. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., No. 07-CV-881, 2008 WL 294294, at *19 n. 26 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) (noting that a facial challenge may be based on the theory that an ordinance was \"passed with discriminatory intent”); Nev. Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Clark County, 565 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1187 (D.Nev.2008) (noting that while \"legislative motive is irrelevant to a facial challenge ... evidence of some intent to disadvantage a class of people makes the determination of the basis for the overt disparate treatment much easier”)."
} | 4,194,334 | a |
. The Court also found motive to be relevant to Plaintiffs' facial challenges, which Defendants do not contest at this'stage of the litigation. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that a facial challenge may be based on the theory that an ordinance was \"passed with discriminatory intent\"",
"sentence": "See Tartikov, 915 F.Supp.2d at 611-14; see also Santa Fe Independent Sch. Distr. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 317, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000) (noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged); Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss, 294 F.3d 415, 425 (2d Cir.2002) (same); cf. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., No. 07-CV-881, 2008 WL 294294, at *19 n. 26 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) (noting that a facial challenge may be based on the theory that an ordinance was \"passed with discriminatory intent”); Nev. Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Clark County, 565 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1187 (D.Nev.2008) (noting that while \"legislative motive is irrelevant to a facial challenge ... evidence of some intent to disadvantage a class of people makes the determination of the basis for the overt disparate treatment much easier”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged",
"sentence": "See Tartikov, 915 F.Supp.2d at 611-14; see also Santa Fe Independent Sch. Distr. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 317, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000) (noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged); Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss, 294 F.3d 415, 425 (2d Cir.2002) (same); cf. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., No. 07-CV-881, 2008 WL 294294, at *19 n. 26 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) (noting that a facial challenge may be based on the theory that an ordinance was \"passed with discriminatory intent”); Nev. Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Clark County, 565 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1187 (D.Nev.2008) (noting that while \"legislative motive is irrelevant to a facial challenge ... evidence of some intent to disadvantage a class of people makes the determination of the basis for the overt disparate treatment much easier”)."
} | 4,194,334 | b |
. The Court also found motive to be relevant to Plaintiffs' facial challenges, which Defendants do not contest at this'stage of the litigation. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged",
"sentence": "See Tartikov, 915 F.Supp.2d at 611-14; see also Santa Fe Independent Sch. Distr. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 317, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000) (noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged); Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss, 294 F.3d 415, 425 (2d Cir.2002) (same); cf. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., No. 07-CV-881, 2008 WL 294294, at *19 n. 26 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) (noting that a facial challenge may be based on the theory that an ordinance was \"passed with discriminatory intent”); Nev. Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Clark County, 565 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1187 (D.Nev.2008) (noting that while \"legislative motive is irrelevant to a facial challenge ... evidence of some intent to disadvantage a class of people makes the determination of the basis for the overt disparate treatment much easier”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "565 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1187",
"parenthetical": "noting that while \"legislative motive is irrelevant to a facial challenge ... evidence of some intent to disadvantage a class of people makes the determination of the basis for the overt disparate treatment much easier\"",
"sentence": "See Tartikov, 915 F.Supp.2d at 611-14; see also Santa Fe Independent Sch. Distr. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 317, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000) (noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged); Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss, 294 F.3d 415, 425 (2d Cir.2002) (same); cf. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., No. 07-CV-881, 2008 WL 294294, at *19 n. 26 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) (noting that a facial challenge may be based on the theory that an ordinance was \"passed with discriminatory intent”); Nev. Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Clark County, 565 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1187 (D.Nev.2008) (noting that while \"legislative motive is irrelevant to a facial challenge ... evidence of some intent to disadvantage a class of people makes the determination of the basis for the overt disparate treatment much easier”)."
} | 4,194,334 | a |
. The Court also found motive to be relevant to Plaintiffs' facial challenges, which Defendants do not contest at this'stage of the litigation. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged",
"sentence": "See Tartikov, 915 F.Supp.2d at 611-14; see also Santa Fe Independent Sch. Distr. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 317, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000) (noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged); Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss, 294 F.3d 415, 425 (2d Cir.2002) (same); cf. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., No. 07-CV-881, 2008 WL 294294, at *19 n. 26 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) (noting that a facial challenge may be based on the theory that an ordinance was \"passed with discriminatory intent”); Nev. Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Clark County, 565 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1187 (D.Nev.2008) (noting that while \"legislative motive is irrelevant to a facial challenge ... evidence of some intent to disadvantage a class of people makes the determination of the basis for the overt disparate treatment much easier”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that a facial challenge may be based on the theory that an ordinance was \"passed with discriminatory intent\"",
"sentence": "See Tartikov, 915 F.Supp.2d at 611-14; see also Santa Fe Independent Sch. Distr. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 317, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000) (noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged); Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss, 294 F.3d 415, 425 (2d Cir.2002) (same); cf. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., No. 07-CV-881, 2008 WL 294294, at *19 n. 26 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) (noting that a facial challenge may be based on the theory that an ordinance was \"passed with discriminatory intent”); Nev. Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Clark County, 565 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1187 (D.Nev.2008) (noting that while \"legislative motive is irrelevant to a facial challenge ... evidence of some intent to disadvantage a class of people makes the determination of the basis for the overt disparate treatment much easier”)."
} | 4,194,334 | a |
. The Court also found motive to be relevant to Plaintiffs' facial challenges, which Defendants do not contest at this'stage of the litigation. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "565 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1187",
"parenthetical": "noting that while \"legislative motive is irrelevant to a facial challenge ... evidence of some intent to disadvantage a class of people makes the determination of the basis for the overt disparate treatment much easier\"",
"sentence": "See Tartikov, 915 F.Supp.2d at 611-14; see also Santa Fe Independent Sch. Distr. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 317, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000) (noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged); Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss, 294 F.3d 415, 425 (2d Cir.2002) (same); cf. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., No. 07-CV-881, 2008 WL 294294, at *19 n. 26 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) (noting that a facial challenge may be based on the theory that an ordinance was \"passed with discriminatory intent”); Nev. Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Clark County, 565 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1187 (D.Nev.2008) (noting that while \"legislative motive is irrelevant to a facial challenge ... evidence of some intent to disadvantage a class of people makes the determination of the basis for the overt disparate treatment much easier”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged",
"sentence": "See Tartikov, 915 F.Supp.2d at 611-14; see also Santa Fe Independent Sch. Distr. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 317, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000) (noting that it is proper for courts to examine the purpose of a law when facially challenged); Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss, 294 F.3d 415, 425 (2d Cir.2002) (same); cf. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., No. 07-CV-881, 2008 WL 294294, at *19 n. 26 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) (noting that a facial challenge may be based on the theory that an ordinance was \"passed with discriminatory intent”); Nev. Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Clark County, 565 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1187 (D.Nev.2008) (noting that while \"legislative motive is irrelevant to a facial challenge ... evidence of some intent to disadvantage a class of people makes the determination of the basis for the overt disparate treatment much easier”)."
} | 4,194,334 | b |
When the basis for a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim is a temporary delay or interruption in the provision of otherwise adequate medical treatment, it is appropriate to focus on the challenged delay or interruption in treatment rather than the prisoner's underlying medical condition alone in analyzing whether the alleged deprivation is, in "objective terms, sufficiently serious," to support an Eighth Amendment claim. In a case like this, however, where the prisoner is receiving appropriate on-going treatment for his condition, but, instead brings a narrower denial of medical care claim based on a temporary delay or interruption in treatment, the serious medical need inquiry can properly take into account the severity of the temporary deprivation alleged by the prisoner. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "503 U.S. 8, 8",
"parenthetical": "in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider \"if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively 'harmful enough' to establish a constitutional violation\"",
"sentence": "See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (“In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”); Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499 (to establish an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of medical care, “[f]irst, [the] plaintiff must make an ‘objective’ showing that the deprivation was ‘sufficiently serious,’ or that the result of defendant’s denial was sufficiently serious”) (emphasis added); cf. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, 112 S.Ct. 995 (in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider “if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a constitutional violation”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "429 U.S. 106, 106",
"parenthetical": "\"In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.\"",
"sentence": "See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (“In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”); Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499 (to establish an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of medical care, “[f]irst, [the] plaintiff must make an ‘objective’ showing that the deprivation was ‘sufficiently serious,’ or that the result of defendant’s denial was sufficiently serious”) (emphasis added); cf. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, 112 S.Ct. 995 (in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider “if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a constitutional violation”)."
} | 9,375,916 | b |
When the basis for a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim is a temporary delay or interruption in the provision of otherwise adequate medical treatment, it is appropriate to focus on the challenged delay or interruption in treatment rather than the prisoner's underlying medical condition alone in analyzing whether the alleged deprivation is, in "objective terms, sufficiently serious," to support an Eighth Amendment claim. In a case like this, however, where the prisoner is receiving appropriate on-going treatment for his condition, but, instead brings a narrower denial of medical care claim based on a temporary delay or interruption in treatment, the serious medical need inquiry can properly take into account the severity of the temporary deprivation alleged by the prisoner. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider \"if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively 'harmful enough' to establish a constitutional violation\"",
"sentence": "See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (“In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”); Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499 (to establish an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of medical care, “[f]irst, [the] plaintiff must make an ‘objective’ showing that the deprivation was ‘sufficiently serious,’ or that the result of defendant’s denial was sufficiently serious”) (emphasis added); cf. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, 112 S.Ct. 995 (in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider “if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a constitutional violation”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "429 U.S. 106, 106",
"parenthetical": "\"In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.\"",
"sentence": "See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (“In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”); Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499 (to establish an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of medical care, “[f]irst, [the] plaintiff must make an ‘objective’ showing that the deprivation was ‘sufficiently serious,’ or that the result of defendant’s denial was sufficiently serious”) (emphasis added); cf. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, 112 S.Ct. 995 (in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider “if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a constitutional violation”)."
} | 9,375,916 | b |
When the basis for a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim is a temporary delay or interruption in the provision of otherwise adequate medical treatment, it is appropriate to focus on the challenged delay or interruption in treatment rather than the prisoner's underlying medical condition alone in analyzing whether the alleged deprivation is, in "objective terms, sufficiently serious," to support an Eighth Amendment claim. In a case like this, however, where the prisoner is receiving appropriate on-going treatment for his condition, but, instead brings a narrower denial of medical care claim based on a temporary delay or interruption in treatment, the serious medical need inquiry can properly take into account the severity of the temporary deprivation alleged by the prisoner. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.\"",
"sentence": "See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (“In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”); Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499 (to establish an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of medical care, “[f]irst, [the] plaintiff must make an ‘objective’ showing that the deprivation was ‘sufficiently serious,’ or that the result of defendant’s denial was sufficiently serious”) (emphasis added); cf. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, 112 S.Ct. 995 (in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider “if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a constitutional violation”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "503 U.S. 8, 8",
"parenthetical": "in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider \"if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively 'harmful enough' to establish a constitutional violation\"",
"sentence": "See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (“In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”); Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499 (to establish an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of medical care, “[f]irst, [the] plaintiff must make an ‘objective’ showing that the deprivation was ‘sufficiently serious,’ or that the result of defendant’s denial was sufficiently serious”) (emphasis added); cf. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, 112 S.Ct. 995 (in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider “if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a constitutional violation”)."
} | 9,375,916 | a |
When the basis for a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim is a temporary delay or interruption in the provision of otherwise adequate medical treatment, it is appropriate to focus on the challenged delay or interruption in treatment rather than the prisoner's underlying medical condition alone in analyzing whether the alleged deprivation is, in "objective terms, sufficiently serious," to support an Eighth Amendment claim. In a case like this, however, where the prisoner is receiving appropriate on-going treatment for his condition, but, instead brings a narrower denial of medical care claim based on a temporary delay or interruption in treatment, the serious medical need inquiry can properly take into account the severity of the temporary deprivation alleged by the prisoner. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider \"if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively 'harmful enough' to establish a constitutional violation\"",
"sentence": "See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (“In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”); Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499 (to establish an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of medical care, “[f]irst, [the] plaintiff must make an ‘objective’ showing that the deprivation was ‘sufficiently serious,’ or that the result of defendant’s denial was sufficiently serious”) (emphasis added); cf. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, 112 S.Ct. 995 (in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider “if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a constitutional violation”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.\"",
"sentence": "See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (“In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”); Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499 (to establish an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of medical care, “[f]irst, [the] plaintiff must make an ‘objective’ showing that the deprivation was ‘sufficiently serious,’ or that the result of defendant’s denial was sufficiently serious”) (emphasis added); cf. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, 112 S.Ct. 995 (in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider “if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a constitutional violation”)."
} | 9,375,916 | b |
When the basis for a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim is a temporary delay or interruption in the provision of otherwise adequate medical treatment, it is appropriate to focus on the challenged delay or interruption in treatment rather than the prisoner's underlying medical condition alone in analyzing whether the alleged deprivation is, in "objective terms, sufficiently serious," to support an Eighth Amendment claim. In a case like this, however, where the prisoner is receiving appropriate on-going treatment for his condition, but, instead brings a narrower denial of medical care claim based on a temporary delay or interruption in treatment, the serious medical need inquiry can properly take into account the severity of the temporary deprivation alleged by the prisoner. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "503 U.S. 8, 8",
"parenthetical": "in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider \"if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively 'harmful enough' to establish a constitutional violation\"",
"sentence": "See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (“In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”); Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499 (to establish an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of medical care, “[f]irst, [the] plaintiff must make an ‘objective’ showing that the deprivation was ‘sufficiently serious,’ or that the result of defendant’s denial was sufficiently serious”) (emphasis added); cf. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, 112 S.Ct. 995 (in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider “if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a constitutional violation”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "294 F.3d 499, 499",
"parenthetical": "to establish an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of medical care, \"[f]irst, [the] plaintiff must make an 'objective' showing that the deprivation was 'sufficiently serious,' or that the result of defendant's denial was sufficiently serious\"",
"sentence": "See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (“In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”); Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499 (to establish an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of medical care, “[f]irst, [the] plaintiff must make an ‘objective’ showing that the deprivation was ‘sufficiently serious,’ or that the result of defendant’s denial was sufficiently serious”) (emphasis added); cf. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, 112 S.Ct. 995 (in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider “if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a constitutional violation”)."
} | 9,375,916 | b |
When the basis for a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim is a temporary delay or interruption in the provision of otherwise adequate medical treatment, it is appropriate to focus on the challenged delay or interruption in treatment rather than the prisoner's underlying medical condition alone in analyzing whether the alleged deprivation is, in "objective terms, sufficiently serious," to support an Eighth Amendment claim. In a case like this, however, where the prisoner is receiving appropriate on-going treatment for his condition, but, instead brings a narrower denial of medical care claim based on a temporary delay or interruption in treatment, the serious medical need inquiry can properly take into account the severity of the temporary deprivation alleged by the prisoner. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider \"if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively 'harmful enough' to establish a constitutional violation\"",
"sentence": "See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (“In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”); Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499 (to establish an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of medical care, “[f]irst, [the] plaintiff must make an ‘objective’ showing that the deprivation was ‘sufficiently serious,’ or that the result of defendant’s denial was sufficiently serious”) (emphasis added); cf. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, 112 S.Ct. 995 (in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider “if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a constitutional violation”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "294 F.3d 499, 499",
"parenthetical": "to establish an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of medical care, \"[f]irst, [the] plaintiff must make an 'objective' showing that the deprivation was 'sufficiently serious,' or that the result of defendant's denial was sufficiently serious\"",
"sentence": "See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (“In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”); Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499 (to establish an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of medical care, “[f]irst, [the] plaintiff must make an ‘objective’ showing that the deprivation was ‘sufficiently serious,’ or that the result of defendant’s denial was sufficiently serious”) (emphasis added); cf. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, 112 S.Ct. 995 (in evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts should consider “if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a constitutional violation”)."
} | 9,375,916 | b |
The State had dismissed the 1990 charge because Dr. Wall's body had not been found and because Ms. Chaney could not be located. Although the police attempted to find Dr. Wall's body in 1986, 1988 and 1990, they were unable to do so until 1995, when Mr. Gamble, who was facing federal drug charges, decided to cooperate with authorities. Thus, the delay was caused by the State's legitimate desire to present a stronger case. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "708 F.2d 528, 528-29",
"parenthetical": "recognizing that uncertainty as to strength of prosecutor's case is legitimate reason for delay in obtaining indictment",
"sentence": "See Pino, 708 F.2d at 528-29 (recognizing that uncertainty as to strength of prosecutor’s case is legitimate reason for delay in obtaining indictment); see also Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 795 (deciding prosecutor abides by fairness standards by refusing to seek indictment until he is satisfied he should prosecute and will be able to establish guilt); United States v. Lebron-Gonzalez, 816 F.2d 823, 831 (1st Cir.1987) (holding in case where key witness cooperated only after his arrest, that “even though the prosecution has probable cause, it is under no duty to initiate criminal proceedings until it is satisfied that it can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "431 U.S. 795, 795",
"parenthetical": "deciding prosecutor abides by fairness standards by refusing to seek indictment until he is satisfied he should prosecute and will be able to establish guilt",
"sentence": "See Pino, 708 F.2d at 528-29 (recognizing that uncertainty as to strength of prosecutor’s case is legitimate reason for delay in obtaining indictment); see also Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 795 (deciding prosecutor abides by fairness standards by refusing to seek indictment until he is satisfied he should prosecute and will be able to establish guilt); United States v. Lebron-Gonzalez, 816 F.2d 823, 831 (1st Cir.1987) (holding in case where key witness cooperated only after his arrest, that “even though the prosecution has probable cause, it is under no duty to initiate criminal proceedings until it is satisfied that it can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”)."
} | 341,019 | a |
The State had dismissed the 1990 charge because Dr. Wall's body had not been found and because Ms. Chaney could not be located. Although the police attempted to find Dr. Wall's body in 1986, 1988 and 1990, they were unable to do so until 1995, when Mr. Gamble, who was facing federal drug charges, decided to cooperate with authorities. Thus, the delay was caused by the State's legitimate desire to present a stronger case. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "816 F.2d 823, 831",
"parenthetical": "holding in case where key witness cooperated only after his arrest, that \"even though the prosecution has probable cause, it is under no duty to initiate criminal proceedings until it is satisfied that it can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt\"",
"sentence": "See Pino, 708 F.2d at 528-29 (recognizing that uncertainty as to strength of prosecutor’s case is legitimate reason for delay in obtaining indictment); see also Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 795 (deciding prosecutor abides by fairness standards by refusing to seek indictment until he is satisfied he should prosecute and will be able to establish guilt); United States v. Lebron-Gonzalez, 816 F.2d 823, 831 (1st Cir.1987) (holding in case where key witness cooperated only after his arrest, that “even though the prosecution has probable cause, it is under no duty to initiate criminal proceedings until it is satisfied that it can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "708 F.2d 528, 528-29",
"parenthetical": "recognizing that uncertainty as to strength of prosecutor's case is legitimate reason for delay in obtaining indictment",
"sentence": "See Pino, 708 F.2d at 528-29 (recognizing that uncertainty as to strength of prosecutor’s case is legitimate reason for delay in obtaining indictment); see also Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 795 (deciding prosecutor abides by fairness standards by refusing to seek indictment until he is satisfied he should prosecute and will be able to establish guilt); United States v. Lebron-Gonzalez, 816 F.2d 823, 831 (1st Cir.1987) (holding in case where key witness cooperated only after his arrest, that “even though the prosecution has probable cause, it is under no duty to initiate criminal proceedings until it is satisfied that it can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”)."
} | 341,019 | b |
A district court need not tolerate defiance of reasonable orders. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "261 F.3d 1075, 1131",
"parenthetical": "\"Shotgun pleadings, if tolerated, harm the court by impeding its ability to administer justice.\"",
"sentence": "See DeSisto College, Inc. v. Line, 888 F.2d 755, 763-64 (11th Cir.1989) (finding district court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning counsel under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 because counsel failed to follow court’s explicit instructions to amend the complaint); In re McDonald, 819 F.2d 1020, 1024 (11th Cir.1987) (finding no abuse of discretion in court’s ruling of criminal contempt where attorney refused to follow district court’s orders and rulings); see also Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1131 (11th Cir.2001) (“Shotgun pleadings, if tolerated, harm the court by impeding its ability to administer justice.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "819 F.2d 1020, 1024",
"parenthetical": "finding no abuse of discretion in court's ruling of criminal contempt where attorney refused to follow district court's orders and rulings",
"sentence": "See DeSisto College, Inc. v. Line, 888 F.2d 755, 763-64 (11th Cir.1989) (finding district court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning counsel under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 because counsel failed to follow court’s explicit instructions to amend the complaint); In re McDonald, 819 F.2d 1020, 1024 (11th Cir.1987) (finding no abuse of discretion in court’s ruling of criminal contempt where attorney refused to follow district court’s orders and rulings); see also Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1131 (11th Cir.2001) (“Shotgun pleadings, if tolerated, harm the court by impeding its ability to administer justice.”)."
} | 3,329,308 | b |
Nor did they present in their opposition to the dismissal motion any developed argumentation as to how additional discovery might advance their cause. Consequently, they forfeited the point. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "116 F.3d 962, 964",
"parenthetical": "holding that plaintiffs who fail to preserve their rights below cannot appeal on the ground that they were denied jurisdictional discovery",
"sentence": "See United States v. Slade, 980 F.2d 27, 30 (1st Cir.1992) (“It is a bedrock rule that when a party has not presented an argument to the district court, she may not unveil it in the court of appeals.”); see also Sunview Condo. Ass’n v. Flexel Int’l, Ltd., 116 F.3d 962, 964 (1st Cir.1997) (holding that plaintiffs who fail to preserve their rights below cannot appeal on the ground that they were denied jurisdictional discovery)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "980 F.2d 27, 30",
"parenthetical": "\"It is a bedrock rule that when a party has not presented an argument to the district court, she may not unveil it in the court of appeals.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Slade, 980 F.2d 27, 30 (1st Cir.1992) (“It is a bedrock rule that when a party has not presented an argument to the district court, she may not unveil it in the court of appeals.”); see also Sunview Condo. Ass’n v. Flexel Int’l, Ltd., 116 F.3d 962, 964 (1st Cir.1997) (holding that plaintiffs who fail to preserve their rights below cannot appeal on the ground that they were denied jurisdictional discovery)."
} | 11,243,789 | b |
This court has previously reconsidered its decisions when presented with compelling new evidence. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "877 F.2d 174, 179",
"parenthetical": "declining to reconsider a previous Miranda holding based on new evidence concerning officer motivation in questioning suspect",
"sentence": "See Cirami, 563 F.2d at 33-35 (new “extraordinary” evidence of attorney negligence supported reconsideration); Fernandez, 506 F.2d at 1204 (reconsidered holding because new evidence conclusively contradicted government’s previous representation); but see United States v. Adegbite, 877 F.2d 174, 179 (2d Cir.1989) (declining to reconsider a previous Miranda holding based on new evidence concerning officer motivation in questioning suspect)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "506 F.2d 1204, 1204",
"parenthetical": "reconsidered holding because new evidence conclusively contradicted government's previous representation",
"sentence": "See Cirami, 563 F.2d at 33-35 (new “extraordinary” evidence of attorney negligence supported reconsideration); Fernandez, 506 F.2d at 1204 (reconsidered holding because new evidence conclusively contradicted government’s previous representation); but see United States v. Adegbite, 877 F.2d 174, 179 (2d Cir.1989) (declining to reconsider a previous Miranda holding based on new evidence concerning officer motivation in questioning suspect)."
} | 11,510,084 | b |
The district court properly dismissed Bonilla's claims against defendants in their individual capacities because Bonilla did not exhaust prison grievance procedures concerning those claims. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "591 F.3d 1217, 1224-26",
"parenthetical": "excusing prisoner's failure to exhaust where prisoner is prevented from doing so",
"sentence": "See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (exhaustion is mandatory and must be done in a timely manner consistent with prison policies); cf. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224-26 (9th Cir.2010) (excusing prisoner’s failure to exhaust where prisoner is prevented from doing so)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "548 U.S. 81, 93-95",
"parenthetical": "exhaustion is mandatory and must be done in a timely manner consistent with prison policies",
"sentence": "See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (exhaustion is mandatory and must be done in a timely manner consistent with prison policies); cf. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224-26 (9th Cir.2010) (excusing prisoner’s failure to exhaust where prisoner is prevented from doing so)."
} | 4,179,057 | b |
The district court properly dismissed Bonilla's claims against defendants in their individual capacities because Bonilla did not exhaust prison grievance procedures concerning those claims. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "591 F.3d 1217, 1224-26",
"parenthetical": "excusing prisoner's failure to exhaust where prisoner is prevented from doing so",
"sentence": "See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (exhaustion is mandatory and must be done in a timely manner consistent with prison policies); cf. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224-26 (9th Cir.2010) (excusing prisoner’s failure to exhaust where prisoner is prevented from doing so)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "exhaustion is mandatory and must be done in a timely manner consistent with prison policies",
"sentence": "See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (exhaustion is mandatory and must be done in a timely manner consistent with prison policies); cf. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224-26 (9th Cir.2010) (excusing prisoner’s failure to exhaust where prisoner is prevented from doing so)."
} | 4,179,057 | b |
The district court properly dismissed Bonilla's claims against defendants in their individual capacities because Bonilla did not exhaust prison grievance procedures concerning those claims. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "exhaustion is mandatory and must be done in a timely manner consistent with prison policies",
"sentence": "See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (exhaustion is mandatory and must be done in a timely manner consistent with prison policies); cf. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224-26 (9th Cir.2010) (excusing prisoner’s failure to exhaust where prisoner is prevented from doing so)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "591 F.3d 1217, 1224-26",
"parenthetical": "excusing prisoner's failure to exhaust where prisoner is prevented from doing so",
"sentence": "See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (exhaustion is mandatory and must be done in a timely manner consistent with prison policies); cf. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224-26 (9th Cir.2010) (excusing prisoner’s failure to exhaust where prisoner is prevented from doing so)."
} | 4,179,057 | a |
The Appellate Division found this series of claims to be unpreserved, and, in any event, meritless. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "91 N.Y.2d 960, 962-63",
"parenthetical": "\"Defendant's contention on appeal concerning a claimed failure of the trial court to make certain inquiries is unpreserved for our review.\"",
"sentence": "See People v. Mercado, 91 N.Y.2d 960, 962-63, 672 N.Y.S.2d 842, 695 N.E.2d 711 (1998) (“Defendant’s contention on appeal concerning a claimed failure of the trial court to make certain inquiries is unpreserved for our review.”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that \"[cjounsel did not request further relief, rendering unpreserved the appellate claim that the court erred in accepting the verdict with out conducting a hearing as to juror number 6,\" and finding \"no basis to conclude that the verdict was less than unanimous\"",
"sentence": "People v. Mercado, 230 A.D.2d 488, 659 N.Y.S.2d 453, 454-55 (App.Div.1997) (noting that “[cjounsel did not request further relief, rendering unpreserved the appellate claim that the court erred in accepting the verdict with out conducting a hearing as to juror number 6,” and finding “no basis to conclude that the verdict was less than unanimous”) The Court of Appeals affirmed, expressly on the ground that the claim was procedurally barred."
} | 168,402 | b |
The Appellate Division found this series of claims to be unpreserved, and, in any event, meritless. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"Defendant's contention on appeal concerning a claimed failure of the trial court to make certain inquiries is unpreserved for our review.\"",
"sentence": "See People v. Mercado, 91 N.Y.2d 960, 962-63, 672 N.Y.S.2d 842, 695 N.E.2d 711 (1998) (“Defendant’s contention on appeal concerning a claimed failure of the trial court to make certain inquiries is unpreserved for our review.”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that \"[cjounsel did not request further relief, rendering unpreserved the appellate claim that the court erred in accepting the verdict with out conducting a hearing as to juror number 6,\" and finding \"no basis to conclude that the verdict was less than unanimous\"",
"sentence": "People v. Mercado, 230 A.D.2d 488, 659 N.Y.S.2d 453, 454-55 (App.Div.1997) (noting that “[cjounsel did not request further relief, rendering unpreserved the appellate claim that the court erred in accepting the verdict with out conducting a hearing as to juror number 6,” and finding “no basis to conclude that the verdict was less than unanimous”) The Court of Appeals affirmed, expressly on the ground that the claim was procedurally barred."
} | 168,402 | b |
The Appellate Division found this series of claims to be unpreserved, and, in any event, meritless. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that \"[cjounsel did not request further relief, rendering unpreserved the appellate claim that the court erred in accepting the verdict with out conducting a hearing as to juror number 6,\" and finding \"no basis to conclude that the verdict was less than unanimous\"",
"sentence": "People v. Mercado, 230 A.D.2d 488, 659 N.Y.S.2d 453, 454-55 (App.Div.1997) (noting that “[cjounsel did not request further relief, rendering unpreserved the appellate claim that the court erred in accepting the verdict with out conducting a hearing as to juror number 6,” and finding “no basis to conclude that the verdict was less than unanimous”) The Court of Appeals affirmed, expressly on the ground that the claim was procedurally barred."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"Defendant's contention on appeal concerning a claimed failure of the trial court to make certain inquiries is unpreserved for our review.\"",
"sentence": "See People v. Mercado, 91 N.Y.2d 960, 962-63, 672 N.Y.S.2d 842, 695 N.E.2d 711 (1998) (“Defendant’s contention on appeal concerning a claimed failure of the trial court to make certain inquiries is unpreserved for our review.”)."
} | 168,402 | a |
The Appellate Division found this series of claims to be unpreserved, and, in any event, meritless. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "91 N.Y.2d 960, 962-63",
"parenthetical": "\"Defendant's contention on appeal concerning a claimed failure of the trial court to make certain inquiries is unpreserved for our review.\"",
"sentence": "See People v. Mercado, 91 N.Y.2d 960, 962-63, 672 N.Y.S.2d 842, 695 N.E.2d 711 (1998) (“Defendant’s contention on appeal concerning a claimed failure of the trial court to make certain inquiries is unpreserved for our review.”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "659 N.Y.S.2d 453, 454-55",
"parenthetical": "noting that \"[cjounsel did not request further relief, rendering unpreserved the appellate claim that the court erred in accepting the verdict with out conducting a hearing as to juror number 6,\" and finding \"no basis to conclude that the verdict was less than unanimous\"",
"sentence": "People v. Mercado, 230 A.D.2d 488, 659 N.Y.S.2d 453, 454-55 (App.Div.1997) (noting that “[cjounsel did not request further relief, rendering unpreserved the appellate claim that the court erred in accepting the verdict with out conducting a hearing as to juror number 6,” and finding “no basis to conclude that the verdict was less than unanimous”) The Court of Appeals affirmed, expressly on the ground that the claim was procedurally barred."
} | 168,402 | b |
The Appellate Division found this series of claims to be unpreserved, and, in any event, meritless. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "659 N.Y.S.2d 453, 454-55",
"parenthetical": "noting that \"[cjounsel did not request further relief, rendering unpreserved the appellate claim that the court erred in accepting the verdict with out conducting a hearing as to juror number 6,\" and finding \"no basis to conclude that the verdict was less than unanimous\"",
"sentence": "People v. Mercado, 230 A.D.2d 488, 659 N.Y.S.2d 453, 454-55 (App.Div.1997) (noting that “[cjounsel did not request further relief, rendering unpreserved the appellate claim that the court erred in accepting the verdict with out conducting a hearing as to juror number 6,” and finding “no basis to conclude that the verdict was less than unanimous”) The Court of Appeals affirmed, expressly on the ground that the claim was procedurally barred."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"Defendant's contention on appeal concerning a claimed failure of the trial court to make certain inquiries is unpreserved for our review.\"",
"sentence": "See People v. Mercado, 91 N.Y.2d 960, 962-63, 672 N.Y.S.2d 842, 695 N.E.2d 711 (1998) (“Defendant’s contention on appeal concerning a claimed failure of the trial court to make certain inquiries is unpreserved for our review.”)."
} | 168,402 | a |
The Appellate Division found this series of claims to be unpreserved, and, in any event, meritless. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"Defendant's contention on appeal concerning a claimed failure of the trial court to make certain inquiries is unpreserved for our review.\"",
"sentence": "See People v. Mercado, 91 N.Y.2d 960, 962-63, 672 N.Y.S.2d 842, 695 N.E.2d 711 (1998) (“Defendant’s contention on appeal concerning a claimed failure of the trial court to make certain inquiries is unpreserved for our review.”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "659 N.Y.S.2d 453, 454-55",
"parenthetical": "noting that \"[cjounsel did not request further relief, rendering unpreserved the appellate claim that the court erred in accepting the verdict with out conducting a hearing as to juror number 6,\" and finding \"no basis to conclude that the verdict was less than unanimous\"",
"sentence": "People v. Mercado, 230 A.D.2d 488, 659 N.Y.S.2d 453, 454-55 (App.Div.1997) (noting that “[cjounsel did not request further relief, rendering unpreserved the appellate claim that the court erred in accepting the verdict with out conducting a hearing as to juror number 6,” and finding “no basis to conclude that the verdict was less than unanimous”) The Court of Appeals affirmed, expressly on the ground that the claim was procedurally barred."
} | 168,402 | b |
The FTC Act is designed to protect consumers from economic injuries. Restitution may be measured by the "the' full amount lost by consumers rather than limiting damages to a defendant's profits." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "128 F.3d 530, 536",
"parenthetical": "affirming restitution for more than $16 million against company and officer as consumer loss under section 13(b",
"sentence": "Stefanchik, 559 F.3d at 931 (affirming restitution of over $17 million for the full amount of consumer loss); see also FTC v. Febre, 128 F.3d 530, 536 (7th Cir.1997) (affirming restitution for more than $16 million against company and officer as consumer loss under section 13(b))."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "559 F.3d 931, 931",
"parenthetical": "affirming restitution of over $17 million for the full amount of consumer loss",
"sentence": "Stefanchik, 559 F.3d at 931 (affirming restitution of over $17 million for the full amount of consumer loss); see also FTC v. Febre, 128 F.3d 530, 536 (7th Cir.1997) (affirming restitution for more than $16 million against company and officer as consumer loss under section 13(b))."
} | 3,866,188 | b |
It rests its argument upon the similarity between compensatory damages awarded to a tort victim and compensatory damages awarded the petitioners for emotional harm suffered as a result of unlawful discrimination. While the nature of relief sought may be determinative of the right to a jury trial when parties dispute whether a claim is equitable or legal in nature, no such dispute exists here. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "96 N.H. 298, 298",
"parenthetical": "whether declaratory judgment action is legal or equitable \"commonly considered to depend upon the nature of the claim or issue presented\"",
"sentence": "But see Employers Assurance Co., 96 N.H. at 298 (whether declaratory judgment action is legal or equitable “commonly considered to depend upon the nature of the claim or issue presented”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "102 N.H. 300, 304",
"parenthetical": "parties disputed whether defendant entitled to jury trial to resolve statute of limitations issue",
"sentence": "See Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 304 (1959) (parties disputed whether defendant entitled to jury trial to resolve statute of limitations issue); Smith v. Manchester Management Corp., 117 N.H. 361, 362 (1977) (parties disputed whether defendant entitled to jury trial to resolve mismanagement of partnership affairs issue subsumed within equitable claim)."
} | 1,192,870 | b |
It rests its argument upon the similarity between compensatory damages awarded to a tort victim and compensatory damages awarded the petitioners for emotional harm suffered as a result of unlawful discrimination. While the nature of relief sought may be determinative of the right to a jury trial when parties dispute whether a claim is equitable or legal in nature, no such dispute exists here. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "96 N.H. 298, 298",
"parenthetical": "whether declaratory judgment action is legal or equitable \"commonly considered to depend upon the nature of the claim or issue presented\"",
"sentence": "But see Employers Assurance Co., 96 N.H. at 298 (whether declaratory judgment action is legal or equitable “commonly considered to depend upon the nature of the claim or issue presented”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "117 N.H. 361, 362",
"parenthetical": "parties disputed whether defendant entitled to jury trial to resolve mismanagement of partnership affairs issue subsumed within equitable claim",
"sentence": "See Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 304 (1959) (parties disputed whether defendant entitled to jury trial to resolve statute of limitations issue); Smith v. Manchester Management Corp., 117 N.H. 361, 362 (1977) (parties disputed whether defendant entitled to jury trial to resolve mismanagement of partnership affairs issue subsumed within equitable claim)."
} | 1,192,870 | b |
In the present case, in addition to being charged with driving under the influence, defendant has been charged not only with failing to drive within his lane of traffic and with failing to drive on the right half of the roadway, but also with careless driving. At a minimum, with respect to this latter offense, the degree of erratic driving observed by Officer Strohl reasonably raised an inference that this provision of the Vehicle Code was being violated, sufficient to justify a stop and an investigation by the officer to determine the cause of the erratic driving. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that officer's observations of defendant weaving four or five times over approximately two miles provided officer with probable cause to believe the driver was in violation of this section of the Vehicle Code",
"sentence": "Commonwealth v. Barkley, 234 Pa. Super. 503, 341 A.2d 192 (1975) (finding that officer’s observations of defendant weaving four or five times over approximately two miles provided officer with probable cause to believe the driver was in violation of this section of the Vehicle Code); cf. Commonwealth v. Whitmyer, 542 Pa. 545, 668 A.2d 1113 (1995) (finding with respect to some offenses, section 3361 of the Vehicle Code (driving at an unsafe speed) being one, that because further investigation following a stop could not lead to the discovery of further evidence in support of this violation, the evidence preceding the stop must be sufficient, in and of itself, to support the violation)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding with respect to some offenses, section 3361 of the Vehicle Code (driving at an unsafe speed",
"sentence": "Commonwealth v. Barkley, 234 Pa. Super. 503, 341 A.2d 192 (1975) (finding that officer’s observations of defendant weaving four or five times over approximately two miles provided officer with probable cause to believe the driver was in violation of this section of the Vehicle Code); cf. Commonwealth v. Whitmyer, 542 Pa. 545, 668 A.2d 1113 (1995) (finding with respect to some offenses, section 3361 of the Vehicle Code (driving at an unsafe speed) being one, that because further investigation following a stop could not lead to the discovery of further evidence in support of this violation, the evidence preceding the stop must be sufficient, in and of itself, to support the violation)."
} | 8,924,765 | a |
In the present case, in addition to being charged with driving under the influence, defendant has been charged not only with failing to drive within his lane of traffic and with failing to drive on the right half of the roadway, but also with careless driving. At a minimum, with respect to this latter offense, the degree of erratic driving observed by Officer Strohl reasonably raised an inference that this provision of the Vehicle Code was being violated, sufficient to justify a stop and an investigation by the officer to determine the cause of the erratic driving. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding with respect to some offenses, section 3361 of the Vehicle Code (driving at an unsafe speed",
"sentence": "Commonwealth v. Barkley, 234 Pa. Super. 503, 341 A.2d 192 (1975) (finding that officer’s observations of defendant weaving four or five times over approximately two miles provided officer with probable cause to believe the driver was in violation of this section of the Vehicle Code); cf. Commonwealth v. Whitmyer, 542 Pa. 545, 668 A.2d 1113 (1995) (finding with respect to some offenses, section 3361 of the Vehicle Code (driving at an unsafe speed) being one, that because further investigation following a stop could not lead to the discovery of further evidence in support of this violation, the evidence preceding the stop must be sufficient, in and of itself, to support the violation)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that officer's observations of defendant weaving four or five times over approximately two miles provided officer with probable cause to believe the driver was in violation of this section of the Vehicle Code",
"sentence": "Commonwealth v. Barkley, 234 Pa. Super. 503, 341 A.2d 192 (1975) (finding that officer’s observations of defendant weaving four or five times over approximately two miles provided officer with probable cause to believe the driver was in violation of this section of the Vehicle Code); cf. Commonwealth v. Whitmyer, 542 Pa. 545, 668 A.2d 1113 (1995) (finding with respect to some offenses, section 3361 of the Vehicle Code (driving at an unsafe speed) being one, that because further investigation following a stop could not lead to the discovery of further evidence in support of this violation, the evidence preceding the stop must be sufficient, in and of itself, to support the violation)."
} | 8,924,765 | b |
In the present case, in addition to being charged with driving under the influence, defendant has been charged not only with failing to drive within his lane of traffic and with failing to drive on the right half of the roadway, but also with careless driving. At a minimum, with respect to this latter offense, the degree of erratic driving observed by Officer Strohl reasonably raised an inference that this provision of the Vehicle Code was being violated, sufficient to justify a stop and an investigation by the officer to determine the cause of the erratic driving. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding with respect to some offenses, section 3361 of the Vehicle Code (driving at an unsafe speed",
"sentence": "Commonwealth v. Barkley, 234 Pa. Super. 503, 341 A.2d 192 (1975) (finding that officer’s observations of defendant weaving four or five times over approximately two miles provided officer with probable cause to believe the driver was in violation of this section of the Vehicle Code); cf. Commonwealth v. Whitmyer, 542 Pa. 545, 668 A.2d 1113 (1995) (finding with respect to some offenses, section 3361 of the Vehicle Code (driving at an unsafe speed) being one, that because further investigation following a stop could not lead to the discovery of further evidence in support of this violation, the evidence preceding the stop must be sufficient, in and of itself, to support the violation)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that officer's observations of defendant weaving four or five times over approximately two miles provided officer with probable cause to believe the driver was in violation of this section of the Vehicle Code",
"sentence": "Commonwealth v. Barkley, 234 Pa. Super. 503, 341 A.2d 192 (1975) (finding that officer’s observations of defendant weaving four or five times over approximately two miles provided officer with probable cause to believe the driver was in violation of this section of the Vehicle Code); cf. Commonwealth v. Whitmyer, 542 Pa. 545, 668 A.2d 1113 (1995) (finding with respect to some offenses, section 3361 of the Vehicle Code (driving at an unsafe speed) being one, that because further investigation following a stop could not lead to the discovery of further evidence in support of this violation, the evidence preceding the stop must be sufficient, in and of itself, to support the violation)."
} | 8,924,765 | b |
In the present case, in addition to being charged with driving under the influence, defendant has been charged not only with failing to drive within his lane of traffic and with failing to drive on the right half of the roadway, but also with careless driving. At a minimum, with respect to this latter offense, the degree of erratic driving observed by Officer Strohl reasonably raised an inference that this provision of the Vehicle Code was being violated, sufficient to justify a stop and an investigation by the officer to determine the cause of the erratic driving. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that officer's observations of defendant weaving four or five times over approximately two miles provided officer with probable cause to believe the driver was in violation of this section of the Vehicle Code",
"sentence": "Commonwealth v. Barkley, 234 Pa. Super. 503, 341 A.2d 192 (1975) (finding that officer’s observations of defendant weaving four or five times over approximately two miles provided officer with probable cause to believe the driver was in violation of this section of the Vehicle Code); cf. Commonwealth v. Whitmyer, 542 Pa. 545, 668 A.2d 1113 (1995) (finding with respect to some offenses, section 3361 of the Vehicle Code (driving at an unsafe speed) being one, that because further investigation following a stop could not lead to the discovery of further evidence in support of this violation, the evidence preceding the stop must be sufficient, in and of itself, to support the violation)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding with respect to some offenses, section 3361 of the Vehicle Code (driving at an unsafe speed",
"sentence": "Commonwealth v. Barkley, 234 Pa. Super. 503, 341 A.2d 192 (1975) (finding that officer’s observations of defendant weaving four or five times over approximately two miles provided officer with probable cause to believe the driver was in violation of this section of the Vehicle Code); cf. Commonwealth v. Whitmyer, 542 Pa. 545, 668 A.2d 1113 (1995) (finding with respect to some offenses, section 3361 of the Vehicle Code (driving at an unsafe speed) being one, that because further investigation following a stop could not lead to the discovery of further evidence in support of this violation, the evidence preceding the stop must be sufficient, in and of itself, to support the violation)."
} | 8,924,765 | a |
Moreover, this conclusion is consistent with our jurisprudence interpreting Rule 222 wherein our appellate courts have found that a decision under this rule does not preempt an award of attorney's fees to which one is otherwise entitled, i.e., statutorily authorized. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney's fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys' fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys' fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | 4,037,469 | b |
Moreover, this conclusion is consistent with our jurisprudence interpreting Rule 222 wherein our appellate courts have found that a decision under this rule does not preempt an award of attorney's fees to which one is otherwise entitled, i.e., statutorily authorized. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney's fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys' fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys' fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | 4,037,469 | b |
Moreover, this conclusion is consistent with our jurisprudence interpreting Rule 222 wherein our appellate courts have found that a decision under this rule does not preempt an award of attorney's fees to which one is otherwise entitled, i.e., statutorily authorized. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys' fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys' fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney's fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | 4,037,469 | a |
Moreover, this conclusion is consistent with our jurisprudence interpreting Rule 222 wherein our appellate courts have found that a decision under this rule does not preempt an award of attorney's fees to which one is otherwise entitled, i.e., statutorily authorized. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney's fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys' fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys' fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | 4,037,469 | b |
Moreover, this conclusion is consistent with our jurisprudence interpreting Rule 222 wherein our appellate courts have found that a decision under this rule does not preempt an award of attorney's fees to which one is otherwise entitled, i.e., statutorily authorized. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "313 S.C. 412, 416",
"parenthetical": "finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court's issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic's lien",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney's fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | 4,037,469 | a |
Moreover, this conclusion is consistent with our jurisprudence interpreting Rule 222 wherein our appellate courts have found that a decision under this rule does not preempt an award of attorney's fees to which one is otherwise entitled, i.e., statutorily authorized. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "313 S.C. 412, 416",
"parenthetical": "finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court's issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic's lien",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney's fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | 4,037,469 | a |
Moreover, this conclusion is consistent with our jurisprudence interpreting Rule 222 wherein our appellate courts have found that a decision under this rule does not preempt an award of attorney's fees to which one is otherwise entitled, i.e., statutorily authorized. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney's fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "438 S.E.2d 248, 250",
"parenthetical": "finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court's issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic's lien",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | 4,037,469 | b |
Moreover, this conclusion is consistent with our jurisprudence interpreting Rule 222 wherein our appellate courts have found that a decision under this rule does not preempt an award of attorney's fees to which one is otherwise entitled, i.e., statutorily authorized. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney's fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "438 S.E.2d 248, 250",
"parenthetical": "finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court's issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic's lien",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | 4,037,469 | b |
Moreover, this conclusion is consistent with our jurisprudence interpreting Rule 222 wherein our appellate courts have found that a decision under this rule does not preempt an award of attorney's fees to which one is otherwise entitled, i.e., statutorily authorized. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney's fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "304 S.C. 539, 543",
"parenthetical": "holding that an award of attorney's fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | 4,037,469 | b |
Moreover, this conclusion is consistent with our jurisprudence interpreting Rule 222 wherein our appellate courts have found that a decision under this rule does not preempt an award of attorney's fees to which one is otherwise entitled, i.e., statutorily authorized. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "304 S.C. 539, 543",
"parenthetical": "holding that an award of attorney's fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney's fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | 4,037,469 | a |
Moreover, this conclusion is consistent with our jurisprudence interpreting Rule 222 wherein our appellate courts have found that a decision under this rule does not preempt an award of attorney's fees to which one is otherwise entitled, i.e., statutorily authorized. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "405 S.E.2d 830, 833",
"parenthetical": "holding that an award of attorney's fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney's fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | 4,037,469 | a |
Moreover, this conclusion is consistent with our jurisprudence interpreting Rule 222 wherein our appellate courts have found that a decision under this rule does not preempt an award of attorney's fees to which one is otherwise entitled, i.e., statutorily authorized. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney's fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "405 S.E.2d 830, 833",
"parenthetical": "holding that an award of attorney's fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Medenica, 332 S.C. 324, 504 S.E.2d 590 (1998) (awarding Respondents a $1,000 attorneys’ fee and $81.66 for costs as allowed by Rule 222 and holding that Respondents could seek additional attorneys’ fees in the circuit court under the UTPA, which provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412, 416, 438 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1993) (finding Appellant waived right to recover appellate costs and fees under Rule 222 as he failed to file an itemized statement of costs prior to the Court’s issuance of the remittitur, but holding that Appellant could seek appellate costs in the circuit court based on his statutory right under section 29-5-10 (authorizing costs incurred for the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien) as “Rule 222 does not preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” (citation omitted)); McDowell v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 304 S.C. 539, 543, 405 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1991) (holding that an award of attorney’s fees under Supreme Court Rule 38 (precursor to Rule 222) did not “preempt an award of attorney’s fees to which one is otherwise entitled” and, thus, Appellant could seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-77-300, which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency); see also Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 597 S.E.2d 793 (2004) (recognizing, in a partition action, that whether Respondents were entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 15-61-110 was a determination for the circuit court)."
} | 4,037,469 | b |
The district court here found and the testimonial evidence adduced at trial shows that Robinson entered the store displaying a weapon, ordered everyone to get on the floor, demanded money from the store's owner, and discharged his weapon in a struggle with the store's owner. The district court's determination that Robinson was not a minor participant therefore was not clearly erroneous. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "15 F.3d 825, 826",
"parenthetical": "stating that a defendant who participated in a robbery by driving a robber to the scene, storing stolen goods and dispersing checks was not entitled to the minor participant role reduction",
"sentence": "See United States v. Pinkney, 15 F.3d 825, 826 (9th Cir.1994) (stating that a defendant who participated in a robbery by driving a robber to the scene, storing stolen goods and dispersing checks was not entitled to the minor participant role reduction); cf. United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 472 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that minor participant determination must be made relative to all participants in the criminal scheme for which the defendant is charged)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "234 F.3d 464, 472",
"parenthetical": "holding that minor participant determination must be made relative to all participants in the criminal scheme for which the defendant is charged",
"sentence": "See United States v. Pinkney, 15 F.3d 825, 826 (9th Cir.1994) (stating that a defendant who participated in a robbery by driving a robber to the scene, storing stolen goods and dispersing checks was not entitled to the minor participant role reduction); cf. United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 472 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that minor participant determination must be made relative to all participants in the criminal scheme for which the defendant is charged)."
} | 215,232 | a |
We add that our holding today is compatible with those of circuits that have addressed the issue. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "641 F.2d 775, 777",
"parenthetical": "where resolution of prisoner's claim for money damages would involve a determination of validity of state court conviction presently before state supreme court, Section 1983 action should be stayed during its pendency",
"sentence": "See Hadley v. Werner, 753 F.2d 514, 516 (6th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (although inmate’s civil rights complaint sought damages rather than release, a necessary portion, of his claim challenged the validity of his conviction and consequent confinement; dismissal of action proper and inmate directed to pursue relief in habeas corpus proceeding); Ybarra v. Reno Thundrebird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 682 (9th Cir.1984) (summary judgment proper as to prisoner’s action for declaratory relief where basis of claim is a challenge to the constitutionality of conviction; “initial and exclusive” remedy lies in habeas corpus); Alexander v. Ware, 714 F.2d 416, 419 (5th Cir.1983) (if a prisoner challenges a “ ‘single allegedly defective [disciplinary] hearing,’ ” he attacks, in essence the fact and duration of his custody; whatever relief is sought for an isolated incident, the prisoner must resort to habeas corpus and exhaust state remedies); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70, 73 (4th Cir.1983) (prisoner’s Section 1983 action, seeking damages and restoration of good time, would be dismissed for failure to exhaust since “core” of the claim was the duration of sentence and any claim of damages was ancillary to and dependent on its favorable resolution); Richardson v. Fleming, 651 F.2d 366, 373 (5th Cir.1981) (the propriety of a prisoner’s Section 1983 action is not determined solely on the basis of relief sought; rather, if upon examination the basis of the claim directly draws into question the validity of the fact or length of confinement, the exclusive remedy is habeas corpus); see also Parkhurst v. State of Wyoming, 641 F.2d 775, 777 (10th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (where resolution of prisoner’s claim for money damages would involve a determination of validity of state court conviction presently before state supreme court, Section 1983 action should be stayed during its pendency), (footnotes omitted)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "712 F.2d 70, 73",
"parenthetical": "prisoner's Section 1983 action, seeking damages and restoration of good time, would be dismissed for failure to exhaust since \"core\" of the claim was the duration of sentence and any claim of damages was ancillary to and dependent on its favorable resolution",
"sentence": "See Hadley v. Werner, 753 F.2d 514, 516 (6th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (although inmate’s civil rights complaint sought damages rather than release, a necessary portion, of his claim challenged the validity of his conviction and consequent confinement; dismissal of action proper and inmate directed to pursue relief in habeas corpus proceeding); Ybarra v. Reno Thundrebird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 682 (9th Cir.1984) (summary judgment proper as to prisoner’s action for declaratory relief where basis of claim is a challenge to the constitutionality of conviction; “initial and exclusive” remedy lies in habeas corpus); Alexander v. Ware, 714 F.2d 416, 419 (5th Cir.1983) (if a prisoner challenges a “ ‘single allegedly defective [disciplinary] hearing,’ ” he attacks, in essence the fact and duration of his custody; whatever relief is sought for an isolated incident, the prisoner must resort to habeas corpus and exhaust state remedies); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70, 73 (4th Cir.1983) (prisoner’s Section 1983 action, seeking damages and restoration of good time, would be dismissed for failure to exhaust since “core” of the claim was the duration of sentence and any claim of damages was ancillary to and dependent on its favorable resolution); Richardson v. Fleming, 651 F.2d 366, 373 (5th Cir.1981) (the propriety of a prisoner’s Section 1983 action is not determined solely on the basis of relief sought; rather, if upon examination the basis of the claim directly draws into question the validity of the fact or length of confinement, the exclusive remedy is habeas corpus); see also Parkhurst v. State of Wyoming, 641 F.2d 775, 777 (10th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (where resolution of prisoner’s claim for money damages would involve a determination of validity of state court conviction presently before state supreme court, Section 1983 action should be stayed during its pendency), (footnotes omitted)."
} | 7,403,565 | b |
Moreover, Petitioners' argument, that we look to Virginia's law in determining whether wages were withheld improperly and, if so, the proper remedy, would lead nonetheless to an outcome unfavorable to Petitioners: the assertedly implied term of SS 40.1-29 is essentially one of remedies, but under the choice of law principle lex fori, we look to the law of the forum in determining the remedy available to a plaintiff in a contract-related action, not lex loci contractus. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "273 Md. 649, 668-69",
"parenthetical": "noting that the answer to the question of whether the subject clause should be construed to provide for the payment of liquidated damages was the same under both the lex fori and the lex loci contractus ",
"sentence": "Eastwood v. Kennedy, 44 Md. 563, 567-68 (1876); see Mike Smith Pontiac, GMC, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., 356 Md. 542, 741 A.2d 462 (1999) (applying the rate of post-judgment interest of the lex fon (Maryland) instead of that of the judgment-rendering state); see also Traylor v. Grafton, 273 Md. 649, 668-69, 332 A.2d 651, 664 (1975) (noting that the answer to the question of whether the subject clause should be construed to provide for the payment of liquidated damages was the same under both the lex fori and the lex loci contractus )."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying the rate of post-judgment interest of the lex fon (Maryland) instead of that of the judgment-rendering state",
"sentence": "Eastwood v. Kennedy, 44 Md. 563, 567-68 (1876); see Mike Smith Pontiac, GMC, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., 356 Md. 542, 741 A.2d 462 (1999) (applying the rate of post-judgment interest of the lex fon (Maryland) instead of that of the judgment-rendering state); see also Traylor v. Grafton, 273 Md. 649, 668-69, 332 A.2d 651, 664 (1975) (noting that the answer to the question of whether the subject clause should be construed to provide for the payment of liquidated damages was the same under both the lex fori and the lex loci contractus )."
} | 4,024,863 | b |
Moreover, Petitioners' argument, that we look to Virginia's law in determining whether wages were withheld improperly and, if so, the proper remedy, would lead nonetheless to an outcome unfavorable to Petitioners: the assertedly implied term of SS 40.1-29 is essentially one of remedies, but under the choice of law principle lex fori, we look to the law of the forum in determining the remedy available to a plaintiff in a contract-related action, not lex loci contractus. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "332 A.2d 651, 664",
"parenthetical": "noting that the answer to the question of whether the subject clause should be construed to provide for the payment of liquidated damages was the same under both the lex fori and the lex loci contractus ",
"sentence": "Eastwood v. Kennedy, 44 Md. 563, 567-68 (1876); see Mike Smith Pontiac, GMC, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., 356 Md. 542, 741 A.2d 462 (1999) (applying the rate of post-judgment interest of the lex fon (Maryland) instead of that of the judgment-rendering state); see also Traylor v. Grafton, 273 Md. 649, 668-69, 332 A.2d 651, 664 (1975) (noting that the answer to the question of whether the subject clause should be construed to provide for the payment of liquidated damages was the same under both the lex fori and the lex loci contractus )."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying the rate of post-judgment interest of the lex fon (Maryland) instead of that of the judgment-rendering state",
"sentence": "Eastwood v. Kennedy, 44 Md. 563, 567-68 (1876); see Mike Smith Pontiac, GMC, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., 356 Md. 542, 741 A.2d 462 (1999) (applying the rate of post-judgment interest of the lex fon (Maryland) instead of that of the judgment-rendering state); see also Traylor v. Grafton, 273 Md. 649, 668-69, 332 A.2d 651, 664 (1975) (noting that the answer to the question of whether the subject clause should be construed to provide for the payment of liquidated damages was the same under both the lex fori and the lex loci contractus )."
} | 4,024,863 | b |
Moreover, Petitioners' argument, that we look to Virginia's law in determining whether wages were withheld improperly and, if so, the proper remedy, would lead nonetheless to an outcome unfavorable to Petitioners: the assertedly implied term of SS 40.1-29 is essentially one of remedies, but under the choice of law principle lex fori, we look to the law of the forum in determining the remedy available to a plaintiff in a contract-related action, not lex loci contractus. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "273 Md. 649, 668-69",
"parenthetical": "noting that the answer to the question of whether the subject clause should be construed to provide for the payment of liquidated damages was the same under both the lex fori and the lex loci contractus ",
"sentence": "Eastwood v. Kennedy, 44 Md. 563, 567-68 (1876); see Mike Smith Pontiac, GMC, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., 356 Md. 542, 741 A.2d 462 (1999) (applying the rate of post-judgment interest of the lex fon (Maryland) instead of that of the judgment-rendering state); see also Traylor v. Grafton, 273 Md. 649, 668-69, 332 A.2d 651, 664 (1975) (noting that the answer to the question of whether the subject clause should be construed to provide for the payment of liquidated damages was the same under both the lex fori and the lex loci contractus )."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying the rate of post-judgment interest of the lex fon (Maryland) instead of that of the judgment-rendering state",
"sentence": "Eastwood v. Kennedy, 44 Md. 563, 567-68 (1876); see Mike Smith Pontiac, GMC, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., 356 Md. 542, 741 A.2d 462 (1999) (applying the rate of post-judgment interest of the lex fon (Maryland) instead of that of the judgment-rendering state); see also Traylor v. Grafton, 273 Md. 649, 668-69, 332 A.2d 651, 664 (1975) (noting that the answer to the question of whether the subject clause should be construed to provide for the payment of liquidated damages was the same under both the lex fori and the lex loci contractus )."
} | 4,024,863 | b |
Moreover, Petitioners' argument, that we look to Virginia's law in determining whether wages were withheld improperly and, if so, the proper remedy, would lead nonetheless to an outcome unfavorable to Petitioners: the assertedly implied term of SS 40.1-29 is essentially one of remedies, but under the choice of law principle lex fori, we look to the law of the forum in determining the remedy available to a plaintiff in a contract-related action, not lex loci contractus. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying the rate of post-judgment interest of the lex fon (Maryland) instead of that of the judgment-rendering state",
"sentence": "Eastwood v. Kennedy, 44 Md. 563, 567-68 (1876); see Mike Smith Pontiac, GMC, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., 356 Md. 542, 741 A.2d 462 (1999) (applying the rate of post-judgment interest of the lex fon (Maryland) instead of that of the judgment-rendering state); see also Traylor v. Grafton, 273 Md. 649, 668-69, 332 A.2d 651, 664 (1975) (noting that the answer to the question of whether the subject clause should be construed to provide for the payment of liquidated damages was the same under both the lex fori and the lex loci contractus )."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "332 A.2d 651, 664",
"parenthetical": "noting that the answer to the question of whether the subject clause should be construed to provide for the payment of liquidated damages was the same under both the lex fori and the lex loci contractus ",
"sentence": "Eastwood v. Kennedy, 44 Md. 563, 567-68 (1876); see Mike Smith Pontiac, GMC, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., 356 Md. 542, 741 A.2d 462 (1999) (applying the rate of post-judgment interest of the lex fon (Maryland) instead of that of the judgment-rendering state); see also Traylor v. Grafton, 273 Md. 649, 668-69, 332 A.2d 651, 664 (1975) (noting that the answer to the question of whether the subject clause should be construed to provide for the payment of liquidated damages was the same under both the lex fori and the lex loci contractus )."
} | 4,024,863 | a |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.