green
Positive treatment
30.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Mine Safety & Health Administration
See RSR Corp. v. Donovan, 747 F.2d 294, 299 (5th Cir.1984); Daniel International Corp. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 656 F.2d 925, 929 (4th Cir. 1981); Madison Foods, Inc. v. Marshall, 630 F.2d 628 , 629 n. 2 (8th Cir.1980); Noblecraft Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 614 F.2d 199 , 201 (9th Cir.1980); National Industrial Constructors, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 583 F.2d 1048, 1051 (8th Cir. 1978); Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 351 (2d Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
International Union, United Mine Workers Of America v. Mine Safety And Health Administration
See RSR Corp. v. Donovan, 747 F.2d 294, 299 (5th Cir.1984); Daniel International Corp. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 656 F.2d 925, 929 (4th Cir.1981); Madison Foods, Inc. v. Marshall, 630 F.2d 628 , 629 n. 2 (8th Cir.1980); Noblecraft Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 614 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir.1980); National Industrial Constructors, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 583 F.2d 1048, 1051 (8th Cir.1978); Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 351 (2d Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Howe v. Health Facilities Appeals Board
Cf. 5 Mezines, Stein & Gruff, Administrative Law § 51.02, at 51-42 (1985); Gellhom & Boyer, Administrative Law and Process 273 (1981); Associated Indus. of New York State, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-350 (2d Cir. 1973) (Friendly, J.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arthur D. Little, Inc. v. Commissioner of Health & Hospitals
(2×)
State, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-350 (2d Cir. 1973).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Public Systems v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
State, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-50 (2d Cir.1973). .Timing differences can arise from either expense or revenue transactions that are prepaid or deferred in rates.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People v. Federal Communications Commission
Superior Oil Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm., 563 F.2d 191, 199 (5th Cir. 1977); Associated Industries v. Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-50 (2d Cir. 1973).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Federal Communications Commission
Superior Oil Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm., 563 F.2d 191, 199 (5th Cir. 1977); Associated Industries v. Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-50 (2d Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Kent Mason, Patricia Warren and Leorlin Boyd v. Department of Transportation, Drew Lewis, as Secretary, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and Raymond A. Peck, Jr., as Administrator, Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, Automobile Importers of America, Inc., Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, Consumer Alert and Pacific Legal Foundation, Intervenors. National Association of Independent Insurers, Automobile Owners Action Council, and Eugene J. Meyung v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automobile Importers of America, Inc., Consumer Alert and Pacific Legal Foundation, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, Intervenors
In Chrysler Corp. v. Dep't. of Transportation, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the substantial evidence test was required by the Safety Act, which mandates that "all of the evidence before the agency ... shall be included in the record" submitted to the reviewing court. 15 U.S.C. § 1394 (a)(1) (referring to 28 U.S.C. § 2112 (b)). 472 F.2d at 668. 18 In Pacific Legal Foundation v. Dep't. of Transportation, the court conducted a "thorough, probing, in-depth review" of the record, but declined to follow the Sixth Circuit's invocation of the substantial evidence test because any difference was …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Department of Transportation
In Chrysler Corp. v. Dep’t. of Transportation, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the substantial evidence test was required by the Safety Act, which mandates that “all of the evidence before the agency ... shall be included in the record” submitted to the reviewing court. 15 U.S.C. § 1394 (a)(1) (referring to 28 U.S.C. § 2112 (b)). 472 F.2d at 668. 18 In Pacific Legal Foundation v. Dep’t. of Transportation, the court conducted a “thorough, probing, in-depth review” of the record, but declined to follow the Sixth Circuit’s invocation of the substantial evidence test because any d…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Amusement and Music Operators Association v. Copyright Royalty Tribunal, Broadcast Music, Inc., Party-Respondent. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers v. Copyright Royalty Tribunal, Amusement and Music Operators Association v. Copyright Royalty Tribunal
State, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-50 (2d Cir. 1973).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Amusement & Music Operators Ass'n v. Copyright Royalty Tribunal
State, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-50 (2d Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carlisle Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States
For Broadcasting v. F.C.C. , 555 F.2d 938 , 956 (D.C.Cir.1977), aff’d and rev’d in part on other grounds, 436 U.S. 775 , 98 S.Ct. 2096 , 56 L.Ed.2d 697 (1978); Associated Indus. of N.Y.S., Inc. v. United States Dept. of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-350 (2d Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan
(2×)
C., at 339-340, 499 F. 2d, at 475-476 ; Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. U. S. Dept. of Labor, 487 F. 2d 342, 354 (CA2 1973); Dry Color Manufacturers' Assn. v. Department of Labor, 486 F. 2d 98, 105-106 (CA3 1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Iowa Public Service Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Burlington Northern, Inc. (\Bn\") and Chicago and North Western Transportation Co. (\"Cnw\")
See also Pacific Legal Foundation v. Department of Transportation, 593 F.2d 1338 , 1343 n.35 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 830 , 100 S.Ct. 57 , 62 L.Ed.2d 38 (1979); Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-50 (2d Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Iowa Public Service Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission
See also Pacific Legal Foundation v. Department of Transportation, 593 F.2d 1338 , 1343 n.35 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 830 , 100 S.Ct. 57 , 62 L.Ed.2d 38 (1979); Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-50 (2d Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Texas Independent Ginners Ass'n v. Marshall
(2×)
State, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 487 F.2d at 354.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Department of Justice Views on the Bumpers Amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Even in the context of particular statutes, the combination of “hybrid” procedures and a substantial evidence test has contributed to confusion and an “absence of statutory harmony with respect to the nature and scope of review.” Associated Industries v. Dept, o f Labor, supra n. 7, 487 F.2d at 345 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Marshall
(2×)
Indus. v. Dep't of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 348-19 (2d Cir. 1973) (Friendly, J.) (discussing legislative history). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission
The partnership, if indeed that concept be at all apt, is thus an “uneasy” one at best, Industrial Union Department v. Hodgson, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 333 , 499 F.2d 467, 469 (1974); Associated Industries v. Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 354 (2d Cir. 1973), as courts struggle to perform their congressionally-mandated task of judicial review without encroaching on territory which as judges they are ill-suited to enter.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center v. Blue Cross of Central New York, Inc.
To the extent that each agency bears the burden of offering some reasoned explanation for its notice and comment rulemaking, United States v. Nova Scotia Food Products Corp., 568 F.2d at 251, 253 ; Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. U. S. Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 352 (2d Cir. 1973), the Administrative Procedure Act requires that all new rules be accompanied by a “concise and general” statement of the findings and rationale *1064 which underlie them.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association v. Federal Aviation Administration, Wset, Inc., Intervenor
See also Paccar, Inc. v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 573 F.2d 632, 636 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 99 S.Ct. 94 (1978); National Nutritional Foods Ass'n v. Weinberger, 512 F.2d 688 , 705 (2d Cir.) (Lumbard, J., concurring), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 827 , 96 S.Ct. 44 , 46 L.Ed.2d 44 (1975); Associated Indus, of New York State, Inc. v. Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-50 (2d *972 Cir. 1973) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 942 , 94 S.Ct. 1948 , 40 L.Ed.2d 294 (1974). 29 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pacific Legal Foundation v. Department of Transportation, Ralph Nader and Public Citizen v. Brock Adams, Secretary of Transportation, Ford Motor Company, Intervenor
Thus the action in this case might be seen to trigger the substantial evidence test for cases "reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute." 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(E) (1976) We do not follow this reasoning because we agree with the emerging consensus of the Courts of Appeals that the distinction between the arbitrary and capricious standard and substantial evidence review is largely semantic, and that "in the review of rules of general applicability made after notice and comment rulemaking, the two criteria to tend to converge." Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v.…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
ITT World Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
As to how meaningful the difference of standards may be, see Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. U. S. Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-50 (2 Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Itt World Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
See Packet Communications, Inc., 43 F.C.C.2d 922 , 925 (1973); Telenet Communications Corp., 46 F.C.C.2d 680 (1974); Graphnet Systems, Inc., 44 F.C.C.2d 800 (1974) 10 As to how meaningful the difference of standards may be, see Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. U. S. Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-50 (2 Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pacific Legal Foundation v. Department of Transportation
We do not follow this reasoning because we agree with the emerging consensus of the Courts of Appeals that the distinction between the arbitrary and capricious standard and substantial evidence review is largely semantic, and that “in the review of rules of general applicability made after notice and comment rulemaking, the two criteria to tend to converge.” Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-350 (2d Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Automobile Club of New York, Inc. v. Cox
Perhaps this is a case where it does matter that this rather than substantial evidence is the applicable standard, see Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 143 , 87 S.Ct. 1507 , 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967); Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 347-50 (2 Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Petroleum Institute v. Occupational Safety And Health Administration
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
E. g., Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 347-50 (2d Cir. 1973); Florida Peach Growers Association, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, 489 F.2d 120, 127-29 (5th Cir. 1974); Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. Hodgson, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 336-340 , 499 F.2d 467, 472-76 (1974); Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Brennan, 503 F.2d 1155, 1158-60 (3d Cir. 1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Petroleum Institute v. Occupational Safety & Health Administration
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
E. g., Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 347-50 (2d Cir. 1973); Florida Peach Growers Association, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, 489 F.2d 120, 127-29 (5th Cir. 1974); Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. Hodgson, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 336-340 , 499 F.2d 467, 472-76 (1974); Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Brennan, 503 F.2d 1155, 1158-60 (3d Cir. 1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baltimore and Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Central Vermont Railway, Inc., Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway, and the Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad Company, Intervenors, Burlington Northern Inc. And Union Pacific Railroad Company, Intervenors, Duval Sales Corporation, International Minerals & Chemical Corporation, Evans Products Company and Pullman Leasing Company, Intervenors, the Texas Mexican Railway Company, Intervenor. Aliquippa and Southern Railroad Company v. United States of America and the Interstate Commerce Commission, Duval Sales Corporation, International Minerals & Chemical Corporation, Evans Products Company and Pullman Leasing Company, Intervenors, the Texas Mexican Railway Company, Intervenor
Ass'n v. Brennan, 503 F.2d 1155, 1158 (3d Cir. 1974), Cert. denied, 420 U.S. 973 , 95 S.Ct. 1396 , 43 L.Ed.2d 653 (1975); Associated Indus., Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 350 (2d Cir. 1973) (Friendly, J.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baltimore v. United States
Ass’n v. Brennan, 503 F.2d 1155, 1158 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 973 , 95 S.Ct. 1396 , 43 L.Ed.2d 653 (1975); Associated Indus., Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 350 (2d Cir. 1973) (Friendly, J.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Short Haul Survival Committee v. United States of America and the Interstate Commerce Commission, A-C Berwick Transporters, Inc. v. United States of America and the Interstate Commerce Commission, American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. United States of America and the Interstate Commerce Commission
As Judge Friendly noted in that case, "it is difficult to imagine a decision having no substantial evidence to support it which is not 'arbitrary' or a decision struck down as arbitrary which is in fact supported by 'substantial evidence' . . . ." 487 F.2d at 349.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Nova Scotia Food Products Corp., David Sklar and Emanuel Sklar, and National Fisheries Institute, Intervenor-Appellant
(2×)
Cf. Associated Industries of N.Y.S., Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 352-53 (2d Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The Superior Oil Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mitchell Energy Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
However, in Florida Peach Growers Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 489 F.2d 120, 128-29 (5th Cir. 1974), quoting Associated Indus, of New York State, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-50 (2d Cir. 1973), this circuit acknowledged that when applied to informal rule making, the two criteria tend to converge.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Wolfish v. Levi
Indus. of N.Y.S., Inc. v. United States Dept. of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 354 (2d Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The Second National Natural Gas Rate Cases American Public Gas Association v. Federal Power Commission
(2×)
Associated Industries of New York v. Dept. of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 348-350 (2d Cir. 1973).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission
Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. U. S. Dept. of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-50 (2d Cir. 1973) (Friendly, J.).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Elyria-Lorain Broadcasting Co., Intervenors. Owosso Broadcasting Company, Inc. v. United States of America and Federal Communications Commission, Ksl, Inc., Intervenor. National Association of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission and the United States of America, Ksl, Inc., Intervenor. Wjag, Inc. v. United States of America and Federal Communications Commission, Whas, Inc., Louisiana Television Broadcasting Corp., Intervenors. The Ogden Newspapers, Inc. v. United States of America and Federal Communications Commission, Ksl, Inc., Intervenor (Two Cases). Daily Telegraph Printing Company v. United States of America and Federal Communications Commission, Whas, Inc., Louisiana Television Broadcasting Corporation, Ksl, Inc., Intervenors. American Newspaper Publishers Association v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Ksl, Inc., Intervenor. The Brockway Company v. United States of America and Federal Communications Commission, Ksl, Inc., Intervenor. Gray Communications Systems, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Ksl, Inc., Intervenor
Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. U. S. Dept. of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-50 (2d Cir. 1973) (Friendly, J.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ethyl Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, Ppg Industries, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, Nalco Chemical Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, National Petroleum Refiners Association v. Environmental Protection Agency
(2×)
Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-350 (2d Cir. 1973) (Friendly, J.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ethyl Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency
(2×)
Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-350 (2d Cir. 1973) (Friendly, X).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Peter J. Brennan
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, supra, Judge Friendly suggests that the difference between the substantial evidence test and the more traditional abuse of discretion test in the context of informal rule making may be largely semantic. 487 F.2d at 349-350.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n v. Brennan
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, supra, Judge Friendly suggests that the difference between the substantial evidence test and the more traditional abuse of discretion test in the context of informal rule making may be largely semantic. 487 F.2d at 349-350.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Industrial Union Department, Afl-Cio v. James D. Hodgson, Secretary, Department of Labor, Environmentaldefense Fund, Inc., Intervenor
(3×)
For a more detailed discussion of these legislative events, see Associated Industries, 470 supra, where the Second Circuit said that the Congressional intention was clear “to adopt the substantial evidence test for review as a tradeoff for the House’s abandoning its insistence on rule-making on the record . . . ” 487 F.2d at 349. 15 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Nutritional Foods Association v. Weinberger
(2×)
S., Inc. v. Dept, of L„ 487 F.2d 342, 354 (2d Cir. 1973); Mobil Oil Corporation v. Federal Power Commission, 152 U.S.App.D.C. 119 , 469 F.2d 130, 140 (1972), cert, den., 412 U.S. 931 , 93 S.Ct. 2749 , 37 L.Ed.2d 159 (1973); International Engineering, Company v. Richardson, 361 F.Supp. 818, 823-825 (D.D.C.1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hotel Ass'n of Washington v. District of Columbia Minimum Wage & Industrial Safety Board
(2×)
But we agree with Judge Friendly, speaking for the court in Associated Indus. of N.Y.S., Inc. v. United States Dept. of L., 487 F.2d 342, 349-350 (2d Cir. 1973), that the “two criteria do tend to converge” ; and “[cjommentators have suggested . . it is difficult to imagine a decision having no substantial evidence to support it which is not ‘arbitrary’, or a decision struck down as arbitrary which is in fact supported by ‘substantial evidence’ ” and “the true significance of the substantial evidence rule is in limiting the agency to the confines of the public record”.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Florida Peach Growers Association, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, Peter J. Brennan, Secretary of Labor, and John H. Stender, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Consolidated With: Florida Citrus Production Managers Association Flo v. U.S. Department of Labor, 73-2279 Washington State Horticultural Association v. Brennan, 73-2283 Idaho Horticultural Society v. Brennan, 73-2327 American Farm Bureau Federation v. Brennan, 73-2493 Massachusetts Fruit Growers Association v. Brennan, 73-2513 Michigan State Horticultural Society v. Brennan, 73-2518 North Carolina Apple Grower's Association v. Brennan, 73-2622 National Peach Council Bre v. Brennan, 73-2623 Raza Association of Spanish Surnamed Americans v. U.S. Department of Labor, 73-2690 New York State Wine Grape Growers Association v. Brennan, 73-2734 Virginia Farm Bureau v. Brennan, 73-2795 Pennsylvania State Horticultural Society v. Brennan, 73-2871 Colorado Apple Administrative Committee v. Brennan, 73-2948
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
While . . . there may be cases where an adjudicative determination not supported by substantial evidence . . . would not be regarded as arbitrary or capricious, . . . in the review of rules of general applicability made after notice and comment rulemaking, the two criteria do tend to coverge. 35 487 F.2d 342 at 349-350. 36 Thus it seems clear that even with the required substantial evidence test, our review basically must determine whether the Secretary carried out his essentially legislative task in a manner reasonable under the state of the record before him. 37 The state of the record in th…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Florida Peach Growers Ass'n v. United States Department of Labor
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
While there may be cases where an adjudicative determination not supported by substantial evidence . . . would not be regarded as arbitrary or capricious, ... in the review of rules of general applicability made after notice and-comment rulemaking, the two criteria do tend to converge. 487 F.2d 342 at 349-350 (citations and footnote omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc., Comshare, Inc., Tymshare, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Citicorp, Intervenor. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc., Comshare, Inc., Tymshare, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Citicorp, California Bankers Clearing House Association, Intervenors
See Associated Industries v. Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-50 (2d Cir.1973) (Friendly, J.); National Nutritional Foods Association v. Weinberger, 512 F.2d 688, 705 (2d Cir.1975) (Lumbard, J., concurring); Paccar, Inc. v. NHTSA, 573 F.2d 632 , 636 (9th Cir.1978) (purporting to avoid the issue, but seemingly not doing so).
discussed
Cited "see"
Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
See Associated Industries v. Department of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 349-50 (2d Cir.1973) (Friendly, J.); National Nutritional Foods Association v. Weinberger, 512 F.2d 688, 705 . (2d Cir.1975) (Lumbard, J., concurring); Paccar, Inc. v. NHTSA, 573 F.2d 632 , 636 (9th Cir.1978) (purporting to avoid the issue, but seemingly not doing so).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
James Edward WEEKS, Defendant-Appellant
v.
James Edward WEEKS, Defendant-Appellant
73-2362.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 21, 1973.
N. P. Callahan, Jr., Birmingham, Ala. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant., Wayman Sherrer, U. S. Atty., Stephen Salter, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Bell, Godbold, Gee.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
The principal issue raised in this appeal is whether in-court identifications were tainted by pre-trial photographic displays. The record contains substantial evidence that the photographic identification procedure did not “give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification,” Simmons v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 971, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 1253, and that the in-court identifications were based on observation of the appellant during the crime. We need not reach this issue, however, because it was not preserved for appeal by appropriate objection during the trial. The admission of the in-court identification being free of plain error, and appellant’s other points of appeal being without merit, the judgment of the court below is therefore
Affirmed.