State v. Coombs

How courts have described this case

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

• “A laboratory test used to prove an essential element of a criminal offense constitutes ... an ex parte affidavit.”
• \A laboratory test used to prove an essential element of a criminal offense constitutes . . . an ex parte affidavit.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
  Supreme Court· 2009-06-25· cited 2,882×
• State v. O'MALEY
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 2007-09-05· cited 26×
• Hooper v. Warden, NNHCF
  D. New Hampshire· 2010-06-09

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Mullaney v. Wilbur
  Supreme Court· 1975-06-09· cited 3,396×
• White v. Illinois
  Supreme Court· 1992-01-15· cited 1,508×
• Lilly v. Virginia
  Supreme Court· 1999-06-14· cited 1,183×
• State v. Ball
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1983-12-12· cited 762×
• State v. Henderson
  Tennessee Supreme Court· 1977-08-15· cited 68×
• State v. Larochelle
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1972-11-03· cited 35×
• Commonwealth v. Kravontka
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1989-05-01· cited 25×
• State v. Spaulding
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 2002-04-16· cited 12×
• State v. Christensen
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1992-05-22· cited 8×