State v. Morris

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “the [United States] Supreme Court has not articulated any useful standards for application of the [due-process] defense” and that it “is a legal defense which must be left to the court to apply”
• rejecting argument that an undercover officer’s conduct in exposing himself to a suspect during a prostitution investigation was outrageous

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Danko
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-09-05· cited 39×
• State v. Ford
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1979-02-16· cited 22×
• People Ex Rel. Difanis v. Boston
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1981-01-23· cited 14×
• State v. Bellfield
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1978-12-15· cited 11×
• State v. Crist
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1979-05-18· cited 8×
• State v. Burkland
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2009-11-24· cited 4×
• State v. Christenson
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2012-11-26· cited 2×

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• Hampton v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1976-04-27· cited 910×