green
Positive treatment
10.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Harris
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Court : There are no objections filed to the factual statements contained in the presentence investigative report so the Court adopts those as its findings of fact. 6 U.S.S.G. § 5K2.10 (emphasis added) 7 See, e.g., United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650, 653-54 (8th Cir.1989)(noting all five factors and discussing the relative size and strength of the victim and defendant). 8 Cf. United States v. Paster, 173 F.3d 206 (3d Cir.1999) (denying a 5K2.10 departure on the grounds that, although the victim's comments to the defendant about her affairs with other men and her ability to contact…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenneth Blankenship v. United States
On this record, we are convinced that the district court would not have concluded that the victim's wrongful conduct substantially contributed to the behavior of the offense -- being a felon in possession of a firearm -- because Blankenship's response was disproportionate to the threat posed by the victim's conduct. 6 Blankenship argues that a downward departure was probable because his case is similar to the facts of United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650, 653-54 (8th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenneth Blankenship v. United States
(2×)
On this record, we are convinced that the district court would not have concluded that the victim's wrongful conduct substantially contributed to the behavior of the offense--being a felon in possession of a firearm--because Blankenship's response was disproportionate to the threat posed by the victim's conduct. 12 Blankenship argues that a downward departure was probable because his case is similar to the facts of United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650, 653-54 (8th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gigante
Because the risk of factual error in a series of adjustments, each of which involves conduct proven by a bare preponderance, is a circumstance present at least "to a degree" not adequately considered by the Commission, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (b), a downward departure would be warranted. 2 See United States v. Restrepo, 936 F.2d 661, 666 (2d Cir.1991); United States v. Cotto, 793 F.Supp. 64, 67 (E.D.N.Y.1992); United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650, 654 (8th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gigante
Because the risk of factual error in a series of adjustments, each of which involves conduct proven by a bare preponderance, is a circumstance present at least “to a degree” not adequately considered by the Commission, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (b), a downward departure would be warranted. 2 See United States v. Restrepo, 936 F.2d 661, 666 (2d Cir.1991); United States v. Cotto, 793 F.Supp. 64, 67 (E.D.N.Y.1992); United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650, 654 (8th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gigante
See United States v. Restrepo, 936 F.2d 661, 666 (2d Cir.1991); United States v. Cotto, 793 F.Supp. 64, 67 (E.D.N.Y.1992); United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650, 654 (8th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gigante
See United States v. Restrepo, 936 F.2d 661, 666 (2d Cir.1991); United States v. Cotto, 793 F.Supp. 64, 67 (E.D.N.Y.1992); United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650, 654 (8th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Patrick Gene Sayers
United States v. Ruklick, 919 F.2d 95, 97 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650, 654-55 (8th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John B. Ruklick
United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650, 654-55 (8th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Smith, 909 F.2d 1164, 1168 (8th Cir.1990) ("There is a growing awareness of measured play in the joints of the Guidelines.").
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Keith Lamonte Hill, A/K/A Keith Lamont Hill, A/K/A Michael Lane Robinson
United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650, 652 (8th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Miguel Cardenas
(2×)
Neither the presentence report nor the district court addressed this issue. 36 The sentencing judge must assume the responsibility for correct application of the Guidelines, see United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650, 655 (8th Cir.1989), but failed to do so in this case. 37 Accordingly, I would vacate Cardenas' sentence and remand this case to the district judge for a resolution of the factual and legal issues and for such further hearing as might be appropriate. 1 The Honorable Clyde S. Cahill, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri 2 Neither party has provi…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. James Simpson
Accord United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650, 654 (8th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Woodworth
United States v. Bigelow, 914 F.2d 966, 975 (7th Cir.1990), reh’g denied, cert, denied; See, e.g., United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650 (8th Cir.1989) (downward departure warranted where victim pushed defendant, verbally abused her, and attempted to publicly humiliate her when she refused his request for sexual intercourse); See also United States v. Left Hand Bull, 901 F.2d 647 (8th Cir.1990) (departure based on victim conduct approved in sentence for threatening letter to ex-wife where *647 husband frustrated by reports of wife’s abandonment of child).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Koon
See Guidelines § 5K2.10; see also United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650, 653-54 (8th Cir.1989) (affirming downward departure from guidelines where victim substantially provoked defendant’s assault by pushing her, verbally abusing her, and publicly humiliating her).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Tina Renee Desormeaux
See, e.g., United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650 (8th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Gregory Scott Bigelow, Vincent Lima, and Anthony W. Vaughan, Cross-Appellees
See, e.g., United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650 (8th Cir.1989) (downward departure warranted where victim pushed defendant, verbally abused her, and attempted to publicly humiliate her when she refused his request for sexual intercourse).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Floyd
See also United States v. Yellow Earrings, 891 F.2d 650 , 653 (8th Cir.1989); United States v. Big Crow, 898 F.2d 1326, 1330 (8th Cir. 1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Gregory A. Lemaire, Debtor. Paul Handeen
v.
Gregory A. Lemaire
v.
Gregory A. Lemaire
88-5275.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Sep 7, 1989.
Published
In re Gregory A. LEMAIRE, Debtor.
Paul HANDEEN, Appellant,
v.
Gregory A. LEMAIRE, Appellee.
No. 88-5275MN.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Sept. 7, 1989.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota; Diana Murphy, Judge.
[*~650]1
Richard G. Nadler, St. Paul, Minn., for appellant.
2
Richard K. Brainerd, Richfield, Minn., for appellee.
3
Prior report: 8th Cir., 883 F.2d 1373.
[*~655]4
Appellant's petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc has been considered by the court and is granted. The opinion and judgment of this court filed on July 5, 1989, are vacated. The case is set for oral argument before the court en banc at 9:00 a.m. Tuesday, October 10, 1989, as the third case that day, in the U.S. Courthouse in St. Paul, Minnesota.