May v. Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that challenged jury instruction on uses of out-of-court statements did not, as presented, raise constitutional claim
• recognizing relevance of relocation by accused in determining whether police efforts in executing arrest warrant were reasonable
• affirming the admission of expert testimony on rape syndrome, including testimony regarding rape victims’ tendency to delay reporting
• upholding admission of expert testimony “regarding the general characteristics of women who delay reporting sexual assault” where expert’s “general description of characteristics that are common among” rape victims “narrowly focused on a subject not familiar to the average person”
• because police had defendant's address, \[t]he jury could have concluded ... that ... the arrest could have been effectuated far sooner\
• “[b]ecause the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense . . . [it] is a question of fact, for the jury”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).