Sockman v. Switzer
Sockman v. Switzer and Switzer v. Sockman
Sockman v. Switzer, 380 U.S. 906 (1965)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
C. C. P. A. Certiorari denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(trial court erred in finding prosecutor’s notes were statements under (e)(2) where prosecutor selectively noted what the witness said; volume of notes were insufficient to be complete transcript of interviews; documents evidenced interpolations)
-
(“Although courts should show the greatest liberality in making available to the defense any writing which represents what the witness may have said, they must also be meticulous in satisfying themselves that what is made available truly represents the witness’ own statements.”)
Cited by 27 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- National Dairy Products Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission
- Glowacki v. Borden, Inc.
- United States v. Gross
- MCI Communications Corporation and MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company
- Barry Wright Corporation v. Itt Grinnell Corporation
- Farmington Dowel Products Co. v. Forster Mfg. Co., Inc.
Most recent
- Nichols Motorcycle Supply Inc. v. Dunlop Tire Corp.
- United States v. John Scotti, United States of America v. Robert Rodriguez
- United States v. Gross
- City of Manchester v. National Gypsum Co.
- Barry Wright Corporation v. Itt Grinnell Corporation
- MCI Communications Corporation and MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.