Citation network
Michigan Vs. Lucas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 20, 1991
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 145 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Michigan v. LucasSearch
-
U.S. 145 (1991) Michigan v. LucasSearch
-
demonstrate that such interests may justify even the severe sanction of preclusion in an appropriate case. Taylor v. IllinoisSearch
-
and sentenced him to a prison term of 44 to 180 months. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed. Relying on People v. WilliamsSearch
-
U. S. 44 , 483 U. S. 55 (1987), quoting Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
Delaware v. VanSearch
-
We have upheld notice requirements in analogous settings. In Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
circumstances, be precluded when a criminal defendant fails to comply with a valid discovery rule. In United States v. NoblesSearch
-
Ibid. Even more telling is Taylor v. IllinoisSearch
-
in the judgment. I concur in the judgment. I write separately because I was among those who dissented in Taylor v. IllinoisSearch
-
and that the sanction therefore would not constitute an arbitrary response to the failure to comply. See Rock v. ArkansasSearch
-
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Black v. CutterSearch
-
K Mart Corp. v. CartierSearch
-
id. at 695, 408 N.W.2d at 432, quoting People v. WilliamsSearch
-
I address it as well. As I read the Court of Appeals' per curiam, as well as its earlier opinion in People v. WilliamsSearch
-
defendant is raising the defense of consent, not only is reasonable, but also is consistent with our opinion in Taylor v. IllinoisSearch
-
The Court of Appeals does rely on People v. WilliamsSearch
-
the Sixth Amendment's language guaranteeing the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him. Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
U. S. 284 (1973). The Sixth Amendment has been held applicable to the States. Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
In People v. WilliamsSearch
-
W.2d 431, 432 (1987) (emphasis added). The Court then quoted a lengthy excerpt from its earlier opinion in People v. WilliamsSearch
-
People v. WilliamsSearch
-
It should be noted that in Illinois, the sanction of preclusion is reserved for only the most extreme cases. In People v. RayfordSearch
-
party demonstrates a 'deliberate contumacious or unwarranted disregard of the court's authority.' ( Schwartz v. MoatsSearch
-
Department of Transportation v. MainlineSearch
-
where due process requires that a defendant be permitted to offer testimony of witnesses in his defense. ( Washington v. TexasSearch
-
Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense.' ( Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
Taylor v. IllinoisSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Michigan v. LucasSearch
-
In Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
In United States v. NoblesSearch
-
See Rock v. ArkansasSearch
-
Black v. CutterSearch
-
K Mart Corp. v. CartierSearch
-
the States. Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
In People v. RayfordSearch
-
Schwartz v. MoatsSearch
-
Washington v. TexasSearch
-
Chambers v. MississippiSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial