DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Coolidge, 260 A.2d 547.

14 citing documents.

  • Baker Valley Lumber, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. 813 A.2d 409 N.H. 2002
    Frye, 293 F. at 1014; see State v. Coolidge, 109 N.H. 403, 421-22 (1969), rev’d on other grounds, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).
  • State v. Johnson 738 A.2d 1284 N.H. 1999
    State v. Coolidge, 109 N.H. 403, 416, 260 A.2d 547, 557 (1969), rev’d on other grounds, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).
  • State v. Merritt 738 A.2d 343 N.H. 1999
    State v. Coolidge, 109 N.H. 403, 424-25, 260 A.2d 547, 562-63 (1969), rev’d on other grounds, 403.U.S.
  • State v. Hungerford 697 A.2d 916 N.H. 1997
    Both defendants moved to dismiss the prosecutions, asserting that the complainants’ testimony would not be admissible at trial under State v. Cressey, 137 N.H. 402, 628 A.2d 696 (1993), New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 702, State v. Coolidge, 109 N.H. 403, 260 A.2d 547 (1969), rev’d on other grounds, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), or Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
  • State v. Vandebogart 616 A.2d 483 N.H. 1992
    Cir. 1923), and State v. Coolidge, 109 N.H. 403, 260 A.2d 547 (1969), rev’d on other grounds, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).
  • State v. Allison 489 A.2d 620 N.H. 1985
    State v. Coolidge, 109 N.H. 403, 260 A.2d 547 (1969), rev’d on other grounds, 403 U.S. 443 (1971); State v. Lincoln, 49 N.H. 464 (1870).
  • State v. Scarlett 426 A.2d 25 N.H. 1981
    Unlike the *42 expert testimony in State v. Coolidge, 109 N.H. 403, 418-22, 260 A.2d 547, 558-61 (1969), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.
  • State v. Novosel 412 A.2d 739 N.H. 1980
    Rather, the right pertains to “orderly expedition and not mere speed.” United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 120 (1966); Smith v. United States, 360 U.S. 1, 10 (1959); State v. Coolidge, 109 N.H. 403, 412, 260 A.2d 547, 554 (1969), rev’d on other grounds, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).
  • State v. Breest 367 A.2d 1320 N.H. 1976
    State v. Coolidge, 109 N.H. 403, 419, 260 A.2d 547, 558-59 (1969) rev’d on other grounds, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), C. McCormick, Evidence § 204, at 497-99 (2d ed 1972); see Annot., 50 A.L.R.3d 117 (1973).
  • State v. White 366 A.2d 872 N.H. 1976
    Under both constitutions the defendant is entitled to be free from capricious and oppressive delay.
  • State v. Vachon 306 A.2d 781 N.H. 1973
    United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 120, 15 L. Ed. 2d 627, 631, 86 S. Ct. 773, 776 (1966); State v. Coolidge, 109 N.H. 403, 412, 260 A.2d 547, 554 (1969).
  • State v. Blake 305 A.2d 300 N.H. 1973
    .” Riendeau v. Milford Municipal Court supra; see State v. Coolidge, 109 N.H. 403, 413, 260 A.2d 547, 554 (1969), rev’d on other grounds, 403 U.S. 443, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564, 91 S. Ct. 2022 (1971).
  • State v. McCarthy 298 A.2d 740 N.H. 1972
    State v. Nelson, 103 N.H. 478, 175 A.2d 814 (1961); State v. Coolidge, 109 N.H. 403, 260 A.2d 547 (1969), rev’d on other grounds, 403 U.S. 443, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564, 91 S. Ct. 2022 (1971).
  • Murray v. Bullard Co. 265 A.2d 309 N.H. 1970
    Did the circumstances require that in the exercise of due care the devices suggested by the plaintiff’s experts should have been supplied with the machine?