State v. Nelsen

How courts have described this case

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

• indicating that the government may solicit testimony from a police officer who had viewed a surveillance video before it was re-recorded and erased
• noting that application of Evidence Rule 1004 is fact-sensitive and government had not been alerted by defendant’s objection that it needed to further develop the record on videotape’s admissibility

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Ostalaza v. People
  Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands· 2013-06-26· cited 14×
• State v. Cockrell
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-04-12· cited 3×
• Tammi Lacy v.State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2018-04-30

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Brady v. Maryland
  Supreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
• Strickler v. Greene
  Supreme Court· 1999-06-17· cited 4,383×
• Colorado v. Connelly
  Supreme Court· 1986-12-10· cited 4,016×
• California v. Trombetta
  Supreme Court· 1984-06-11· cited 3,405×
• Arizona v. Youngblood
  Supreme Court· 1989-01-23· cited 3,366×
• Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1993-10-19· cited 2,400×
• United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
  Supreme Court· 1982-07-02· cited 1,404×
• Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2001-03-08· cited 428×
• State v. Rogers
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2000-05-04· cited 302×
• United States v. Rahman
  Second Circuit· 1999-08-16· cited 233×
• State v. Walton
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1991-04-04· cited 149×
• United States v. William Lee Workinger
  Ninth Circuit· 1996-07-23· cited 76×
• Carter v. United States National Bank
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1987-12-22· cited 39×
• State v. Cornell
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1992-11-25· cited 31×
• State v. Zinsli
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1998-09-30· cited 27×
• State v. Cornell
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1991-10-30· cited 8×