Martin v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Martin v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 435 U.S. 1010 (1978)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: May 1, 1978
Docket: No. 77-6364
Citations: 435 U.S. 101098 S. Ct. 188456 L. Ed. 2d 3921978 U.S. LEXIS 1730

Cited by 48 4 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(no denial of effective cross-examination for impeachment where the jury has sufficient information to appraise the bias and motives of the witness)

United States v. Cutler, 676 F.2d 1245 (9th Cir. 1982)
(where defense knew of basic content of plea agreement with prosecution’s star witness before trial, “[k]nowledge of the precise details of the agreement was unlikely to add significantly to its impeachment potential”)

State v. Romeo, 542 N.W.2d 543 (Iowa 1996)
(no unrestricted right to present evidence to identify another as the culprit)

United States v. Kennedy, 714 F.2d 968 (9th Cir. 1983)

Cited by 48 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

State ex rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC.644 P.2d 1266 (Ariz. 1982)
Ozzie Batchelor v. Hoyt C. Cupp, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, James Redden, Solicitor General, Walter L. Barr693 F.2d 859 (9th Cir. 1982)
United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen and Tsang-Chi Chen754 F.2d 817 (9th Cir. 1985)
United States v. Ray731 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir. 1984)
United States v. Michael Edward Kennedy714 F.2d 968 (9th Cir. 1983)
United States v. Paul Deluca, Robert Kaye, James Danno, and John Lee692 F.2d 1277 (9th Cir. 1982)

Most recent

Chamberlain v. Pliler307 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (C.D. Cal. 2004)
State v. Baker720 A.2d 1139 (Del. 1998)
State v. Borne691 So. 2d 1281 (La. Ct. App. 1997)
State v. Romeo542 N.W.2d 543 (Iowa 1996)
Hughes v. State653 A.2d 241 (Del. 1995)
Steven D. ROBERTSON v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation32 F.3d 408 (9th Cir. 1994)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list