Kardy v. SHOOK, J.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the ability of the defense to question a State’s witness was subject to “witness’ acquiescence in such interrogations”
• stating the Haas opinion “did not discuss or consider anything relative to the taking of depositions”
• stating the Haas opinion \did not discuss or consider anything relative to the taking of depositions\
• interlocutory order not appealable, but views expressed on issue of great public concern
• interlocutory order not appealable, but views expressed on issue of great public concern
• order allowing defendant in criminal case to take pretrial depositions of State’s witnesses

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).