green
Positive treatment
24.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Brandon Lavantis Hughes
United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1577 (11th Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Solomon Neuhardt
U.S. v. Garcia, 528 F.2d 580, 587-88 (5th Cir. 1976); U.S. v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1581-82 (11th Cir. 1988). ¶48 I would have included this further explanation in our Opinion.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Neuhardt
U.S. v. Garcia, 528 F.2d 580, 587-88 (5th Cir. 1976); U.S. v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1581-82 (11th Cir. 1988). ¶48 I would have included this further explanation in our Opinion.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hugo Pena
United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1577 (11th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Vincent Artuso
We must therefore grant the lower court’s finding of impartiality still greater deference under the plain error doctrine: “Plain errors are those seriously affecting the ‘fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ Furthermore, the error must be both obvious and substantial. [Plain error is found] in exceptional circumstances where needed to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” Simmons, 961 F.2d at 185 (quoting United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1575 (11th Cir.1988)) (alteration in original) (other citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joseph Michael Mooney
In the absence of a request for specific instructions or an objection to the jury charge, we will reverse for error in a jury instruction only if there is a “ ‘likelihood of a grave miscarriage of justice’ ” or the error is “so obvious that failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1577 (11th Cir.1988) (citing United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 , 56 S.Ct. 391, 392 , 80 L.Ed. 555 *742 (1936)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dickey v. State
See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 75, 87 (1st Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 906 , 107 S.Ct. 2484 , 96 L.Ed.2d 377 (1987); United States v. Bryan, 122 F.3d 90, 92 (2d Cir.1997); Government of Virgin Islands v. Hendricks, 476 F.2d 776, 779 (3d Cir.1973); United States v. Gregorio, 497 F.2d 1253, 1261-63 (4th Cir.1974), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Rhodes, 32 F.3d 867 (4th Cir. 1994); Scott v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 854, 882-83 (6th Cir.2000); United States v. Yarbough, 55 F.3d 280, 283-85 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Hoppe, 645 F.2d 630, 632-33 (8th Cir.), cer…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Malicia Lyn Taylor Osborne
See Fed.R.Crim.P. 44(c) Advisory Committee Notes (1979 Amendment); United States v. Salado, 339 F.3d 285, 290 (5th Cir.2003) (noting that “the obligation placed upon the court by Rule 44(c) is a continuing one”) (quotation marks and citation omitted); United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1580 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1070 , 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1989) (“[T]he mere fact that a rule 44(c) inquiry was conducted in the early stages of the case does not relieve the court of all responsibility in this regard thereafter.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jesse Wright, Jr.
United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1574 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1070 , 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jesse Wright, Jr., A.K.A. Jessie Wright
United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1574 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied 489 U.S. 1070 , 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Miles
The Eleventh Circuit did state, in dictum, that additional instructions would have been "more important" if the addict's testimony had "been totally uncorroborated or had it suggested internal inconsistency.” United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1579 (11th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jorge Humberto Velez-Vasquez, Sergio Eulogio Londono
Cf. United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1576-77 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1070 , 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1989) (finding no plain error where the court failed to instruct on the presumption before deliberations, but had done so shortly after the jury was sworn, and where the court’s final charge gave extensive instructions on reasonable doubt and burden of proof and cautioned the jury to base its verdict only on the evidence).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ronald Olen Burrows
E.g., United States v. Spriggs, 996 F.2d 320, 325-26 (D.C.Cir.1993) (addict instruction unnecessary where trial court gives cautionary instruction regarding testimony of accomplices), cer t. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 359 , 126 L.Ed.2d 323 (1993); United States v. Nicholson, 983 F.2d 983, 991-92 (10th Cir.1992) (addict instruction unnecessary where trial court gives general impeachment instruction and special instructions on the credibility of felony witnesses and immunized witnesses); United States v. McGhee, 882 F.2d 1095, 1100 (6th Cir.1989) (addict instruction unnecessary where trial co…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Carmen Rosa Behety, Felino Ramirez-Valdez
United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1575 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1070 , 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John H. Migliaccio, United States of America v. Bert M. Avery
Cf. United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1580-81 (11th Cir.1988) (holding magistrate’s pretrial hearing sufficient under Rule 44(c) and considering the district court’s cursory *1528 questioning as well), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1070 , 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Shawn Daniels, Tyrone Scott, Paul George, Sadie Elizabeth Green, Johnny Morris Anderson, Kenneth Bruce Hicks
United States v. Hope, 901 F.2d 1013, 1020 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1041 , 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991); United States v. Soloman, 856 F.2d 1572, 1575 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1070 , 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Harold Hall Paslay, A/K/A Pat Paslay
See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1575 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1070 , 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert H. Beard
United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1577 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1070 , 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1989); United States v. Duncan, 855 F.2d 1528, 1530 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1029 , 109 S.Ct. 1161 , 103 L.Ed.2d 220 (1989); Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Steven Allen Simmons
United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1575 (11th Cir.1988) (quoting United States v. Fernandez, 496 F.2d 1294, 1297 (5th Cir.1974)); see Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). 1 The district court in its voir dire properly instructed the jury regarding the law of proof and burden involved in criminal cases.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gonzalez
United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1575 (11th Cir.1988), ce rt. denied, 489 U.S. 1070 , 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1989); United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 675 (11th Cir.1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gonzalez
United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1575 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1070 , 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1989); United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 675 (11th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Nestor Julio Perez-Garcia, Sebastian Viera, Jorge Felix Rodriguez, Pedro Luis Rodriguez
“Plain error is error which is obvious and which affects a litigant’s substantial rights, and should be recognized only where there are exceptional circumstances which require the court to recognize the error to avoid a miscarriage of justice.” Hernandez-Cuartas, 717 F.2d at 555; see also, United States v. Walther, 867 F.2d 1334, 1343-44 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 144 , 107 L.Ed.2d 103 (1989); United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1575 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Willie Langston, Charles Dean, Pete Melton, A/K/A Robert E. Melton
In light of that failure, Melton must establish that the alleged deficiency constitutes “plain error.” See United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1574 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alga Hope, Jr.
United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1574 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kimberly J. Ferguson v. Bayerische Motoren Werke, A.G. Bmw of North America, Inc.
United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1575 (11th Cir.1988), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Kyocera Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc., Formerly Prudential-Bache Trade Corporation, Prudential Capital & Investment Services, Inc., Lapine Technology Corporation, and Lapine Holding Company, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees. Lapine Technology Corporation v. Kyocera Corporation, Lapine Technology Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Claim-Defendant-Appellee v. Kyocera Corporation, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Plaintiff-Appellant v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc., Fba Prudential-Bache Trade Corporation Prudential Capital & Investment Services, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees
See Toyota of Berkeley v. Automobile Salesmen's Union, 834 F.2d 751, 756 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1043 , 108 S.Ct. 2036 , 100 L.Ed.2d 620 (1988), modified, 856 F.2d 1572 (9th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc.
See Toyota of Berkeley v. Automobile Salesmen’s Union, 834 F.2d 751, 756 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1043 , 108 S.Ct. 2036 , 100 L.Ed.2d 620 (1988), modified, 856 F.2d 1572 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pulliam v. Tallapoosa County Jail
Thompson & Co. v. Partridge, 636 F.2d 945, 955-56 (5th Cir.1981) (concluding that erroneous charge on burden of proof was not plain error); see also United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1576-77 (11th Cir.1988) (concluding that failure to give instruction, after closing arguments, on presumption of innocence in criminal trial, was not plain error, where instruction was given earlier in trial); United States v. Fernandez, 496 F.2d 1294, 1299 (5th Cir.1974) (stating, but reversing in conjunction with other grounds, “[w]ith the presumption of innocence charge not requested and its omission n…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pulliam v. Tallapoosa County Jail
Thompson & Co. v. Partridge, 636 F.2d 945, 955-56 (5th Cir. 1981) (concluding that erroneous charge on burden of proof was not plain error); see also United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1576-77 (11th Cir. 1988) (concluding that failure to give instruction, after closing arguments, on presumption of innocence in criminal trial, was not plain error, where instruction was given earlier in trial); United States v. Ferndandez, 496 F.2d 1294, 1299 (5th Cir. 1974) (stating, but reversing in conjunction with other grounds, “[w]ith the presumption of innocence charge not requested and its omissi…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rico
(2×)
See id. at 820-21 ; Holley, 826 F.2d at 334 (" ‘Mere speculation about a conflict ... is insufficient to establish ineffective representation.’ " (quotation omitted)); see also United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1581 (11th Cir.1988) ("Potential or hypothetical conflicts are insufficient; the defendant must be able to point to specific instances in the record showing that defense counsel actively represented conflicting interests.”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1070 , 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1989). 52 . 517 F.2d 272 , 276-77 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. David J. Payne
Compare Dilg, 700 F.2d at 627 (no instruction to the jury telling them that their conclusion must be based solely on the evidence adduced at trial); see also, United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1576 (11th Cir.1988), (explaining that the “concern in Dilg stemmed in part from the trial court’s failure to caution the jury to reach its conclusion solely from the evidence adduced at trial”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1070 , 109 S.Ct. 1352 , 103 L.Ed.2d 820 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local No. 162, an Unincorporated Association v. Jason Manufacturing, Inc.
Partiality “The burden of proving facts which would establish a reasonable impression of partiality rests squarely on the party challenging the award.” Kinney, 756 F.2d at 745 ; see also Toyota of Berkeley v. Automobile Salesmen’s Union, Local 1095, 834 F.2d 751, 755 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1043 , 108 S.Ct. 2036 , 100 L.Ed.2d 620 , recalled and amended on other grounds, 856 F.2d 1572 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 20 v. Baylor Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc.
Id.; see also Toyota v. Automobile Salesmen’s Union, Local 1095, 834 F.2d 751, 754 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 2036 , 100 L.Ed.2d 620 (1988), modified, 856 F.2d 1572 (9th Cir.1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
TOYOTA OF BERKELEY, a Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AUTOMOBILE SALESMAN’S UNION, LOCAL 1095, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, Defendant-Appellant
v.
AUTOMOBILE SALESMAN’S UNION, LOCAL 1095, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, Defendant-Appellant
87-1555.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 28, 1988.
Hug, Boochever, Brunetti.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
ORDER
The motion to clarify mandate is granted. The mandate is recalled. The opinion, 834 F.2d 751 (9th 1987), is amended by deleting the period after the last sentence and adding “, and the cause is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this court’s opinion.”