United States v. Avaughn Bernard Green, 1 F.3d 45 (D.C. Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Avaughn Bernard Green, 1 F.3d 45 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …because failure to exhaust administrative 2 remedies is not a jurisdictional defect, it is subject to equitable defenses. ⚠ not in text
29 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: 336-Cv (ca2, 2015-06-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) 336-Cv
2d Cir. · 2015 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
because failure to exhaust administrative 2 remedies is not a jurisdictional defect, it is subject to equitable defenses.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40
2d Cir. · 2015 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
because failure to exhaust administrative 2 remedies is not a jurisdictional defect, it is subject to equitable defenses.
discussed Cited "see" Simon v. Bickell
D.D.C. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sobamowo v. Bonner, 1 F.3d 45 , at *3 (D.C.Cir.1993) (unpublished table decision) (quoting Sindram, 986 F.2d at 1461 ) (holding that court clerk actions such as “accepting filings and signing orders ‘for the court’ ” are “integral parts of the judicial process” as to which clerks are entitled to absolute immunity); Reddy v. O’Connor, 520 F.Supp.2d 124, 130 (D.D.C.2007) (finding that a clerk’s “receipt and processing of plaintiff’s attempted filings” to be “part and parcel of the process of adjudicating *16 cases” and therefore the clerk was protected by absolute i…
cited Cited "see" Simon v. Bickell
D.D.C. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sobamowo v. Bonner, 1 F.3d 45 , at *3 (D.C.
discussed Cited "see" Bergerco Canada v. Iraqi State Co. for Food Stuff
D.D.C. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See OFAC’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply on its Own Motion for *268 Summary Judgment (“OFAC’s Opposition”), at 8-9 (citing Association of Accredited Cosmetology v. Alexander, 979 F.2d 859, 864 (D.C.Cir.1992), vacated in part, 1 F.3d 45 , 1993 WL 280377 (1993) (table)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Avaughn Bernard Green
92-3164.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Jul 26, 1993.
1 F.3d 45
Unpublished
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #41,090 of 633,719
Citer courts: Second Circuit (2)

1 F.3d 45

303 U.S.App.D.C. 86

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Avaughn Bernard GREEN, Appellant.

No. 92-3164.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

July 26, 1993.

Before MIKVA, Chief Judge, and WALD and BUCKLEY, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

1

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C.Cir.Rule 14(c). It is

2

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of conviction be affirmed. The district court's order denying Green's motion to suppress the cocaine seized from the car was proper for the reasons stated by the court in its Memorandum Opinion filed October 28, 1991. Further, because the car was searched incident to a lawful arrest of the driver, see New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460 & n. 4 (1981), the statement Green made to the police after he waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was not the fruit of an illegal search.

3

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 15.