Walker v. Penner

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there was no violation of Article I, section 9, when a private citizen removed incriminating evidence from a wrecked car and delivered it to the police
• holding that there was no violation of Article I, section 9, when a private citizen removed incriminating evidence from a wrecked car and delivered it to the police
• considering court’s instructions as factor in whether improper invited response was reversible error
• \`[T]he mere fact that counsel for one party has injected improper matter into the case does not license opposing counsel to commit a similar wrong'[.]\
• “ ‘[T]he mere fact that counsel for one party has injected improper matter into the case does not license opposing counsel to commit a similar wrong’L]”
• trial court properly precluded counsel from making a “highly inflammatory” argument to the effect that opposing counsel’s argument was “a communist’s argument”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).