State v. Carvalho’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
May 2014
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Agnello v. United States · Walder v. United States · Fisher v. Dye · Handy v. Geary · State v. Mattatall
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A motion in limine is inherently conditional.” State v. Carvalho, 892 A.2d 140, 146 (R.I.2006). In almost all instances, ”[t]he preliminary grant or denial of an in limine motion 'need not be taken as a final determination of the admissibility of the evidence referred to in the motion.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.