Cartnail v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that prevailing party on the motion to suppress at trial is entitled to all reasonable inferences from the facts
• stating that “[i]ssues of law and mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo”
• stating that, with regard to a Fourth Amendment question, “this Court makes an independent determination of whether the State has violated an individual’s constitutional rights by applying the law to the facts”
• stating that with regard to a Fourth Amendment question, \this Court makes an independent determination of whether the State has violated an individual's constitutional rights by applying the law to the facts\
• stating that with regard to a Fourth Amendment question, “this Court makes an independent determination of whether the State has violated an individual’s constitutional rights by applying the law to the facts”
• maintaining that this Court does not engage in de novo fact-finding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).