green
Positive treatment
16.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Leib v. Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission
Mgmt., 910 F.2d 713, 719-20 (11th Cir.1990).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. City of Mobile
Mgmt., 910 F.2d 713, 723 (11th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Environmental Technology Council, Formerly Known as Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, on Behalf of Itself and Its Members v. Sierra Club Energy Research Foundation Citizens for Clean Air and Water Citizens Asking for a Safe Environment, Incorporated (Case) Environmentalists, Incorporated, and State of South Carolina David M. Beasley, Governor Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control South Carolina Board of Health and Environmental Control, Environmental Technology Council, Formerly Known as Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, on Behalf of Itself and Its Members v. State of South Carolina David M. Beasley, Governor Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control South Carolina Board of Health and Environmental Control, and Sierra Club Energy Research Foundation Citizens for Clean Air and Water Citizens Asking for a Safe Environment, Incorporated (Case) Environmentalists, Incorporated
(2×)
Management, 910 F.2d 713, 715-16 (11th Cir.1990), as modified upon denial of reh'g, 924 F.2d 1001 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1206 , 111 S.Ct. 2800 , 115 L.Ed.2d 973 (1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Environmental Technology Council v. Sierra Club
(2×)
Management, 910 F.2d 713, 715-16 (11th Cir.1990), as modified upon denial of reh'g, 924 F.2d 1001 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1206 , 111 S.Ct. 2800 , 115 L.Ed.2d 973 (1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Environmental Technologies Council v. South Carolina
See Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 , 98 S.Ct. 2531 , 57 L.Ed.2d 475 (1978); Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt, 504 U.S. 334 , 112 S.Ct. 2009 , 119 L.Ed.2d 121 (1992); Fart Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Dep’t of Natural Resources, 504 U.S. 353 , 112 S.Ct. 2019 , 119 L.Ed.2d 139 (1992); C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 1677 , 128 L.Ed.2d 399 (1994); Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Dep’t of Environmental Quality, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1345 , 128 L.Ed.2d 13 (1994); National Solid Waste Management v. Alabama Dep’t of Env�…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Environmental Waste Reductions, Inc. v. Reheis
Management, 910 F.2d 713, 717, 720-21 (11th Cir.1990) (statute prohibiting importation of hazardous waste from any state without either a hazardous waste disposal facility or a regional or interstate agreement for the disposal of its hazardous waste held a protectionist measure and violative of the Commerce Clause).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Northeast Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control
Management, 910 F.2d 713, 718-19 (11th Cir.1990); BFI Medical Waste Systems, Inc. v. Whatcom County, 756 F.Supp. 480, 486 (W.D.Wash.1991); Industrial Maintenance Serv., Inc. v. Moore, 677 F.Supp. 436 , 440-4f4 (S.D.W.Va.1987). 9 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
LaFarge Corp. v. Campbell
Management, 910 F.2d 713, 720-21 (11th Cir.1990); Blue Circle, slip op. at 8. *513 Since the siting prohibition does apply evenhandedly and has only an incidental impact on interstate commerce, the relevant inquiry is whether or not it effects a legitimate public interest, and, if so, whether any burden on interstate commerce is “clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” See Pike, 397 U.S. at 142 , 90 S.Ct. at 847 (emphasis added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Old Bridge Chemicals, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Management, 910 F.2d 713, 720 (11th Cir.1990) (heightened scrutiny applied to protectionist state environmental statute). 6 2.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. South Carolina
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Management, 910 F.2d 713, 715-16 (11th Cir.1990), as modified upon denial of reh’g, 924 F.2d 1001 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2800 , 115 L.Ed.2d 973 (1991).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. State Of South Carolina
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Management, 910 F.2d 713, 715-16 (11th Cir.1990), as modified upon denial of reh'g, 924 F.2d 1001 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2800 , 115 L.Ed.2d 973 (1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hunt v. Chemical Waste Management
(2×)
Alabama's ban does not distinguish on the basis of type of waste or degree of dangerousness, but on the basis of the state of generation." Id. , 910 F.2d at 721.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Templet
(2×)
Management, 910 F.2d 713, 722 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 2800 , 115 L.Ed.2d 973 (1991). 12 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n v. Alabama Department of Environmental Management
(2×)
Management, 910 F.2d 713, 722-23 (11th Cir.1990), the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) granted for certain wastes a national variance from the timetable for implementing the “land disposal ban” enacted by Congress in 1984.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Solid Wastes Management Association v. The Alabama Department Of Environmental Management
(2×)
Management, 910 F.2d 713, 722-23 (11th Cir.1990), the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") granted for certain wastes a national variance from the timetable for implementing the "land disposal ban" enacted by Congress in 1984.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Government Suppliers Consolidating Services, Inc. v. Bayh
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Management, 910 F.2d 713, 720-21 (11th Cir.1990). 28 While it appears that no court has addressed the question of whether the worth of infectious waste in interstate commerce is outweighed by the dangers in its movement so as to bring such waste within the quarantine cases, this court does not conclude that the interstate movement of infectious waste can be distinguished from the interstate movement of nuclear, hazardous or municipal solid waste. 29 The *765 record in this ease simply does not support such a conclusion.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Avery Lans
See United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948, 969 (11th Cir.), modified by 910 F.2d 713 (11th Cir. 1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Eddie Lee Perry
See United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948 , 963 n.13 (11th Cir.), opinion modified on denial of reh’g, 910 F.2d 713 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that one party cannot adopt the arguments of another party on appeal when the “the fact-specific nature of [the argument on appeal] requires independent briefing if we are to reach the merits”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Enrique Balderas
See United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948 , 963 n. 13 (11th Cir.1990), modified, 910 F.2d 713 (11th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ramstad v. Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp.
See United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 975 (11th Cir.) (party challenging refusal to strike juror for cause must show “either an express admission of bias, or proof of specific facts showing such a close connection to the circumstances of the ease that bias must be presumed.”) (citation omitted), opinion modified on other grounds, 910 F.2d 713 (11th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt
(2×)
See National Solid Wastes Management Assn. v. Alabama Dept. of Environmental Mgmt., 910 F. 2d 713 , 718-719 (CA11 1990), modified, 924 F. 2d 1001 , cert. denied, 501 U. S. 1206 (1991). [4] The Act went into effect July 15, 1990.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. South Carolina
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See National Solid Wastes Management Association, et al. v. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 910 F.2d 713 (11th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Manuel Vasquez and Jose Pollo Renteria
See United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948, 972 , modified on other grounds, 910 F.2d 713 (11th Cir.1990); United States v. Tobin, 840 F.2d 867, 869 (11th Cir.1988); United States v. Campbell, 706 F.2d 1138, 1142 (11th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Valero v. Garland
However, “absent extraordinary circumstances, a defendant may not seek collateral relief while his direct appeal is pending, as the outcome of the direct appeal may negate the need for habeas relief.” United States v. Casaran–Rivas, 311 F. App’x 269, 272 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (collecting cases supporting dismissal of § 2255 motions as premature while direct appeal pending); see also United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 975, 976 (11th Cir. 1990) (“The general rule is that a defendant may not seek collateral relief while his direct appeal is pending.”), modified on other ground…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
D'ANTORIO v. State
Cash, credit cards, negotiable instruments, and any number of other items could be hidden between the pages of a notebook, and could give rise to a claim against the city if lost. (footnotes omitted); see also United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948, 959-60 (11th Cir.) (“[The agent’s] initial inspection of the notebook was necessary and proper to ensure that there was nothing of value hidden between the pages,” but further action in reading what was written within notebook was beyond inventory purpose and illegal), modified on other grounds, 910 F.2d 713 (11th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ramos
“All defendants who are joined for trial generally fall within the speedy trial computation of the latest codefendant.” Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321 , 323 n. 2, 106 S.Ct. 1871 , 1873 n. 2, 90 L.Ed.2d 299 (1986) (citing § 3161(h)(7)); see also United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948, 971 (11th Cir.1990) (“[W]hen the clock stops for one defendant, generally it stops for all defendants.”), modified on other grounds, 910 F.2d 713 (11th Cir.1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
George M. KHOURY, Howard Kluver, David W. West and Louis H. Chippas, Defendants-Appellants
v.
George M. KHOURY, Howard Kluver, David W. West and Louis H. Chippas, Defendants-Appellants
86-5175.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jul 25, 1990.
Fay, Kravitch, Per Curiam, Thompson.
Cited by 18 opinions | Published
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION OF REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion May 21, 1990, 11th Cir.1990, 901 F.2d 975)
Before FAY and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON * , District Judge. PER CURIAM:Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing, the court orders that its opinion be modified such that the final sentence of section IV.D is deleted, and in its place the following is inserted:
As Kluver’s conviction is reversed on other grounds, there is no need to remand for resentencing. Nor need West be resentenced as his sentence on count three was to run concurrently to his sentence on count one. Khoury’s sentence and Chippas’s sentence on count three, however, were to run consecutively to the sentence on count one; therefore, we remand for resentencing of Khoury and Chippas.
In addition, the court orders that the penultimate sentence of the opinion’s concluding paragraph should be modified to read: “Finally, we REMAND to the district court for resentencing of Khoury and Chip-pas (as their convictions on count three have been reversed), the Brady issue, and for proceedings consistent with this opinion and Bifulco. In all other respects, the judgment below is AFFIRMED.”
The motion of David West to adopt rehearing of Louis H. Chippas is GRANTED.
The petitions for rehearing are DENIED and no member of this panel nor other Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 35-5, the Suggestion(s) of Rehearing En Banc are DENIED.