State v. Cardell

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that it reviewed issues of relevance de novo and concluding that evidence admitted by the district court to corroborate victim testimony was instead relevant to prove absence of mistake or accident
• admitting evidence that defendant, a masseuse, had previously assaulted his clients while massaging them to show that he did not accidentally grope the victim during a massage
• admitting evidence that defendant, a masseuse, had previously assaulted his clients while massaging them to show that he did not accidentally grope the victim during a massage
• equating vaginal area with genital area

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Johnson
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2010-02-01· cited 145×
• State v. Parmer
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 2009-03-11· cited 76×
• State v. Hammer
  Wisconsin Supreme Court· 2000-07-11· cited 63×
• City of McCall v. Seubert
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2006-02-24· cited 33×
• State v. Domingo Jesus Diaz
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 2015-05-15· cited 16×
• State v. Truman
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 2010-12-16· cited 14×
• Uzzle v. Estate of Hirning
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2020-11-10· cited 13×
• State v. Gomez
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 2011-03-11· cited 10×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Raudebaugh
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1993-09-08· cited 270×
• State v. Oldham
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1968-03-04· cited 78×
• State v. Moore
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1991-10-01· cited 77×
• State v. Tolman
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1992-03-31· cited 68×
• State v. Phillips
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1993-01-28· cited 33×
• State v. LaBelle
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1995-01-06· cited 18×
• State v. Danson
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 1987-12-14· cited 9×