green
Positive treatment
19.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Renee Dunigan, et al. v. Michael Thomas, et al.
In any case, these cases arise in the context of a motion to suppress, see Murrie, 534 F.2d 695 ; Smith, 386 F.3d 753 , and are therefore inapposite to the present inquiry: while the burden of proof to establish that a search was reasonable rests on the Government at a suppression hearing, see United States v. Oliver, 686 F.2d 356, 371 (6th Cir. 1982), aff’d, 466 U.S. 170 , 104 S. Ct. 1735 , 80 L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Davis
Defendant’s expectation of privacy against aerial surveillance is likely not 4 protected by the Fourth Amendment 5 {69} “In determining whether a particular form of government-initiated . . . 6 surveillance is a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment,” Smith v. 7 Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 739 (1979), the United States Supreme Court adopted a two- 8 prong test that was first articulated in Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz v. United 9 States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring), limitation of holding 10 recognized by United States v. Oliver, 686 F.2d 356,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Davis
Defendant’s expectation of privacy against aerial surveillance is likely not protected by the Fourth Amendment {69} “In determining whether a particular form of government-initiated . . . surveillance is a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment,” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 739 (1979), the United States Supreme Court adopted a two-prong test that was first articulated in Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring), limitation of holding recognized by United States v. Oliver, 686 F.2d 356, 359-60 (6th Cir…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Karen Anderson-Bagshaw
(2×)
We explained that the Fourth Amendment principles articulated by courts protect privacy by “establish[ing] an environment in which individual emotional and mental processes can develop freely without surveillance or - 50 - No. 12-3074 United States v. Bagshaw interference.” Oliver, 686 F.2d at 360 (emphasis added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Higerd v. State
United States v. Oliver, 686 F.2d 356, 371 (6th Cir.1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Fofana
United States v. Oliver, 686 F.2d 356, 371 (6th Cir.1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
O'DONNELL v. Brown
United States v. Oliver, 686 F.2d 356, 371 (6th Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert R. Haddix
This opinion does not dishonor the important rule that the full extent of a home's Fourth Amendment protection extends to the boundary between its curtilage and any surrounding "open fields.” See United States v. Oliver, 686 F.2d 356, 360 (6th Cir.1982). 2 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gerena
See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. at 525 n. 7, 104 S.Ct. at 3199 n. 7 (society’s viewpoint must be considered in the resolution of standing issues); Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. at 182 n. 13, 104 S.Ct. at 1743 n. 13 (“[c]ertainly the Framers did not intend that the Fourth Amendment should shelter criminal activity wherever persons with criminal intent choose to erect barriers and post ‘No Trespassing’ signs”); United States v. Oliver, 686 F.2d 356, 372 (6th Cir.1982) (en banc), aff'd., 466 U.S. 170 , 104 S.Ct. 1735 , 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984) (quoting United States v. Oliver, 657 F.2d …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dow Chemical Company v. United States of America, by and Through Anne M. Burford, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
United States v. Oliver, 686 F.2d 356, 360 (6th Cir.1982) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Ester
This issue was also squarely presented to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal in United States v. Peacock, 654 F.2d 339 (U.S. 5 Cir.1981) reh. granted 686 F.2d 356 *1365 (U.S. 5 Cir.1982), vacating unrelated portion; cert. den. ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 404 , 78 L.Ed.2d 344 , wherein the court stated: Harvey argues that the admission of four declarations by his co-conspirators... violated both his right to confrontation and the rules of hearsay.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Oliver v. United States
(4×)
The court reasoned that the “human relations that create the need for privacy do not ordinarily take place” in open fields, and that the property owner’s common-law right to exclude trespassers is insufficiently linked to privacy to warrant the Fourth Amendment’s protection. 686 F. 2d, at 360. 3 We granted certiorari. 459 U. S. 1168 (1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Simmons
(2×)
We believe that no privacy rights inhere and the Fourth Amendment does not protect an open field of marijuana." United States v. Oliver, 686 F.2d 356, 360 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Browne
See United States v. Peacock, 654 F.2d 339, 348 (5th Cir. Aug.1981) (“[C]onviction under § 1962(c) requires only that the defendant be convicted of two acts of racketeering and that the [acts] must be related to the affairs of the enterprise .... ” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), vacated in part on other grounds on reh’g, 686 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982); 25 see *1259 also United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 668 (11th Cir.1984) (“[T]he government proved at least two predicate acts of racketeering beyond a reasonable doubt.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Edwards
See United States v. Peacock, 654 F.2d 339, 348 , vacated in part on other grounds, 686 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1982); see also Brennan v. United States, 867 F.2d 111, 114-16 (2d Cir. 1989); United States v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656, 682 (10th Cir. 1989); United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 665-68 (11th Cir. 1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Edwin Edwards Stephen Edwards Cecil Brown Andrew Martin Bobby Johnson
See United States v. Peacock, 654 F.2d 339, 348 , vacated in part on other grounds, 686 F.2d 356 (5th Cir.1982); see also Brennan v. United States, 867 F.2d 111, 114-16 (2d Cir.1989); United States v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656, 682 (10th Cir.1989); United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 665-68 (11th Cir.1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Hutchinson v. Wickes Companies, Inc.
See United States v. Peacock, 654 F.2d 339 (5th Cir.1981), vacated in part, 686 F.2d 356 (5th Cir.1982) (on other grounds), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 965, 104 S.Ct. 404 , 78 L.Ed.2d 344 (1983). 6 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Erwin
See United States v. Peacock, 654 F.2d 339, 348 (5th Cir.1981) on reh. in part on other grounds, 686 F.2d 356 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 965 , 104 S.Ct. 404 , 78 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985); United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 667-68 (11th Cir.1984); cf. United States v. Ruggiero, 726 F.2d 913, 921-23 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 118 , 83 L.Ed.2d 60 (1984) (where definition of one of eight predicate acts was legally insufficient and no offense was charged as separate substantive count, RICO count must fall) 22 Although the indictment attributed three predicate acts to …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Erwin
See United States v. Peacock, 654 F.2d 339, 348 (5th Cir. 1981) on reh. in part on other grounds, 686 F.2d 356 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 965 , 104 S.Ct. 404 , 78 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985); United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 667-68 (11th Cir. 1984); cf. United States v. Ruggiero, 726 F.2d 913, 921-23 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 118 , 83 L.Ed.2d 60 (1984) (where definition of one of eight predicate acts was legally insufficient and no offense was charged as separate substantive count, RICO count must fall). .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Angelo Pepe and Thomas Miglionico, United States of America v. Albert Joseph Facchiano, Francis Santo, Paul Santo
Accord United States v. Peacock, 654 F.2d 339, 348 (5th Cir.1981) (separate arson counts incorporated by reference as predicate acts into substantive RICO count), vacated in part on other grounds, 686 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982). 68 Accordingly, the government proved at least two predicate acts of racketeering beyond a reasonable doubt.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sproates v. State
See United States v. Oliver, 686 F.2d 356 (6th Cir.1982) (en banc) (as a matter of law, a defendant-landowner can have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to an open field on his land), cert. granted,-U.S.—, 103 S.Ct. 812 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1983); State v. Thornton, 453 A.2d 489 (Me.1982) (open fields doctrine not applicable to justify warrantless search of defendant’s land), cert. granted,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 1520 , 75 L.Ed.2d 944 (1983); State v. Brady, 406 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 1982) (open fields doctrine not applicable where officers crossed a dike, rammed through one gate, cut t…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Alonzo Berrong and Jack McKay
See United States v. Oliver, 686 F.2d 356 (6th Cir.1982) (en banc) (as a matter of law, a defendant-landowner can have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to an open field on his land), cert. granted,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 812 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1983); State v. Thornton, 453 A.2d 489 (Me.1982) (open fields doctrine not applicable to justify warrantless search of defendant’s land), cert. granted,U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1520 , 75 L.Ed.2d 944 (1983); State v. Brady, 406 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 1982) (open fields doctrine not applicable where officers crossed a dike, rammed through one gate, cut the…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Rex C. Cauble, Individually and Doing Business as Cauble Enterprises
United States v. Boffa, 688 F.2d 919, 939 (3d Cir.1982) (“by alleging that all of the appellants’ interest in the enumerated corporations was subject to forfeiture, the indictment alleged the ‘extent of the interest or property subject to forfeiture’ ” required by Rule 7(c)(2)), cert. denied,-U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1272 , 75 L.Ed.2d 494 (1983); United States v. Grammatikos, 633 F.2d 1013, 1024 (2d Cir. 1980) (same); see United States v. Peacock, 654 F.2d 339, 351 (5th Cir. 1981), modified, 686 F.2d 356 (5th Cir.1982) (per curiam), petition for cert. died, 51 U.S.L.W. 3512 (U.S. Nov. 23, 1…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rock v. Huffco Gas & Oil Co.
Because the two occur almost simultaneously, there is almost no "likelihood of [a] deliberate or conscious misrepresentation." Fed.R.Evid. 803(1) advisory committee's note; see also United States v. Peacock, 654 F.2d 339, 350 (5th Cir. Aug. 1981), modified on other grounds, 686 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (statement, otherwise hearsay, admitted under Rule 803(1), because "[t]here was no time for [declarant] to consciously manipulate the truth"). 45 The accident reports filed by Christian and Gardner do not fit within the limits established by Rule 803(1).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rock v. Huffco Gas & Oil Co.
Because the two occur almost simultaneously, there is almost no “likelihood of [a] deliberate or conscious misrepresentation.” Fed.R.Evid. 803(1) advisory committee’s note; see also United States v. Peacock, 654 F.2d 339, 350 (5th Cir. Aug. 1981), modified on other grounds, 686 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (statement, otherwise hearsay, admitted under Rule 803(1), because “[tjhere was no time for [declarant] to consciously manipulate the truth”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Shannon Blake Triplett
See also United States v. Peacock, 654 F.2d 339, 349 (5th Cir.1981), vacated on other grounds, 686 F.2d 356 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 965 , 104 S.Ct. 404 , 78 L.Ed.2d 344 (1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Vera Lee PEACOCK, Hoyle Lamont Peacock, Defendants-Appellants
v.
Vera Lee PEACOCK, Hoyle Lamont Peacock, Defendants-Appellants
80-7087.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sep 24, 1982.
John C. Swearingen, Jr., Columbus, Ga., for Harvey Peacock., T. M. Flournoy, Jr., Columbus, Ga., for Vera Lee Peacock and Hoyle Lamont Peacock., Edgar W. Ennis, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for United States.
Roney, Hill, Fay.
Cited by 13 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
IT IS ORDERED that the government’s petition for rehearing is GRANTED.
Part V of our opinion dealt with the forfeiture of insurance proceeds acquired by the appellants. Bound at the time by the decision in United States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1981), we held that 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a) did not authorize the forfeiture of the profits of a RICO offense and reversed the district court’s forfeiture order. 654 F.2d 339 at 351-52.
After our opinion issued, the Former Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted rehearing en banc as to the portion of Martino that dealt with forfeiture. The court held that § 1963(a) does encompass “forfeiture of the income or proceeds of racketeering activity.” United States v. Martino, 681 F.2d 952, 961 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc).
Accordingly, upon our reconsideration, so much of Part V of our opinion as dealt with the scope of section 1963(a) is vacated. The district court’s forfeiture order is affirmed for the reasons stated in the Fifth Circuit’s en banc opinion in Martino. In all other respects, the panel adheres to the opinion previously issued, and appellants’ petition for rehearing is DENIED.