Coffey v. James H. McManus Shoppes of America, Inc., 631 A.2d 833 (R.I. 1993)

• Related Articles

• T.H. Leland v. D.R. Leonard, 112 A. 198, 95 Vt. 36 (Vt. 1921)

  The value of photographs and photographic enlargements of questioned signatures and documents is everywhere recognized. [95 Vt. 38] It is attested by this Court in Rowell v. Fuller's Estate, 59 Vt. 688, 10 A. 853. They must be properly verified, to ...

• Curtis v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 80 A. 127, 32 R.I. 542 (R.I. 1911)

  The admission of photographs of places and things, for the purpose of aiding the jury in applying the facts proved to the particular case, is a matter of almost everyday occurrence in the courts.

• State v. Pulphus, 465 A.2d 153 (R.I. 1983)

  This court has always allowed the admission of X-ray photographs into evidence even though no one can testify from direct observation inside the body that they accurately represent what they purport to show. Williams v. Altruda, 74 R.I. 47, 58 A.2d ...

• Dederichs v. Salt Lake City R. Co., 14 Utah 137, 141, 46 P. 656, 657, 35 L.R.A. 802, 807

  The court, by Miner, J., speaking of photographs excluded by the court below, said: "These photographs exhibited the surface condition of the streets, buildings, trees, cars, railroad track, poles, and distances, and would, no doubt, carry to the ...

• State v. Robbins, 666 A.2d 85 (Me. 1995)

  The trial court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence, and the photographic lineup was relevant to and probative of the accuracy of the witness's identification of Robbins as the perpetrator. M.R.Evid. 401, 402, 403. ...