Quin 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 there was no error in refusing to appoint a neurologist in addition to a psychologist because the distinctions and differences in approach between the two were not called to the trial court's attention prior to the court's ruling
• holding that there was no error in refusing to appoint a neurologist in addition to a psychologist because the distinctions and differences in approach between the two were not called to the trial court’s attention prior to the court’s ruling
• holding that there was no error in refusing to appoint a neurologist in addition to a psychologist because the distinctions and differences in approach between the two were not called to the trial court’s attention prior to the court’s ruling

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).