State v. Isabelle

How courts have described this case

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

• \[i]t is a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion to exclude ... evidence the relevancy of which appears to be so slight and inconsequential that to admit it would distract attention which should be concentrated on vital issues of the case\ [internal quotation marks omitted]
• ‘‘[i]t is a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion to exclude . . . evidence the relevancy of which appears to be so slight and inconsequential that to admit it would distract attention which should be concentrated on vital issues of the case’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• ‘‘[i]t is a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion to exclude . . . evidence the relevancy of which appears to be so slight and inconsequential that to admit it would distract attention which should be concentrated on vital issues of the case’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• ‘‘[i]t is a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion to exclude . . . evidence the rele- vancy of which appears to be so slight and inconsequen- tial that to admit it would distract attention which should be concentrated on vital issues of the case’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).