green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
14.0 score
“as long as the protections of rule 403 remain in place to ensure that potentially devastating evidence of little proba- tive value will not reach the jury, the right to a fair trial remains adequately safeguarded.”
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Aranda
as long as the protections of rule 403 remain in place to ensure that potentially devastating evidence of little proba- tive value will not reach the jury, the right to a fair trial remains adequately safeguarded.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ezell
See State v. Champagne, 325 Or App 76, 83 , 527 P3d 1067 (2023) (con- cluding that evidence of the defendant’s prior sexual abuse crimes was admissible considering the factors discussed in United States v. LeMay, 260 F3d 1018, 1028 (9th Cir 2001), cert den, 534 US 1166 (2002)); State v. Powers, 323 Or App 553, 567-68 , 523 P3d 1112 (2023) (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ezell
See State v. Champagne, 325 Or App 76, 83 , 527 P3d 1067 (2023) (con- cluding that evidence of the defendant’s prior sexual abuse crimes was admissible considering the factors discussed in United States v. LeMay, 260 F3d 1018, 1028 (9th Cir 2001), cert den, 534 US 1166 (2002)); State v. Powers, 323 Or App 553, 567-68 , 523 P3d 1112 (2023) (same).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Arias
See United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018 , 1030-31 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166 , 122 S.Ct. 1181 , 152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wallace v. State
See U.S. v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018, 1030 (9th Cir.2001) (“Sex offenders are not a suspect class.”), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166 , 122 S.Ct. 1181 , 152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002); Roe v. Marcotte, 193 F.3d 72 , 82 (2d Cir.1999) (citing Artway v. Attorney Gen., 81 F.3d 1235, 1267 (3d Cir. 1996), for the proposition that “sex offenders are not a suspect class for purposes of Fourteenth Amendment analysis”); Kreimer v. Bureau of Police, 958 F.2d 1242 , 1269 n. 36 (3d Cir.1992) (“[T]he homeless do not constitute a suspect class[.]”); accord Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 471 , 97 S.Ct. 2376 , 53 L.E…
cited
Cited "see"
Ray v. Kernan
See United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018, 1024-25 (9th Cir.2001), ce rt. denied, 534 U.S. 1166 , 122 S.Ct. 1181 , 152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dunn
(2×)
See United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir.2001) ("Neither Morrison nor Jones modifies our decision in McAllister, upholding the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g), under Congress' Commerce Clause power." (citing United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387, 390 (11th Cir.1996))) (other citations omitted), cert. denied 534 U.S. 1166 , 122 S.Ct. 1182 , 152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sean Allen, United States of America v. Eric Adam Dixon, United States of America v. Jeremiah Skidmore, United States of America v. Jason Guy Potter, United States of America v. Ryan Flaherty, United States of America v. Michael Flom
See United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir.2001) ("[A]s long as the weapon in question has a `minimal nexus' to interstate commerce, § 922(g)(1) is constitutional.") (affirming United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387 (11th Cir.1996)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166 , 122 S.Ct. 1182 (2002); United States v. Peterson, 236 F.3d 848, 852 (7th Cir.2001) (upholding the de minimus standard as it applies to robberies prosecuted under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (a)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Allen
See United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir.2001) (“[A]s long as the weapon in question has a ‘minimal nexus’ to interstate commerce, § 922(g)(1) is constitutional.”) (affirming United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387 (11th Cir.1996)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166 , 122 S.Ct. 1182 (2002); United States v. Peterson, 236 F.3d 848, 852 (7th Cir.2001) (upholding the de minimus standard as it applies to robberies prosecuted under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (a)).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. VanLeer
See United States v. Sullivan, 255 F.3d 1256, 1260 (10th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166 , 122 S.Ct. 1182 , 152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002). 39 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Clarence Kenneth Gorman
See United States v. Summers, 268 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166 , 122 S.Ct. 1182 , 152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Samuel U.
See, e.g., United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018, 1027 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166 , 122 S. Ct. 1181 , 152 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Anthony A. v. Commissioner of Correction
See, e.g., United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001) (‘‘[s]ex offenders are not a suspect class’’), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166 , 122 S. Ct. 1181 , 152 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. State
See also United States v. Sullivan, 255 F.3d 1256, 1264-65 (10th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166 , 122 S.Ct. 1182 , 152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002) and Joyner v. State, 2002 WY 174 , ¶ 19 n. 5, 58 P.3d 331 , 337-38 n. 5 (Wyo.2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Spinner v. State
See also United States v. Sullivan, 255 F.3d 1256, 1264-65 (10th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166 , 122 S.Ct. 1182 , 152 LEd.2d 124 (2002) and Joyner v. State, 2002 WY 174 , ¶ 19 n. 5, 58 P.3d 331 , 337-38 n. 5 (Wyo.2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
DeCato v. United States
See, e.g., United States v. Sullivan, 255 F.3d 1256, 1263 (10th Cir.2001) (rejecting similar argument on ground that it would produce “anomalous]” result whereby commission of additional crimes resulted in lower overall sentence), cert, denied, 534 U.S. 1166 , 122 S.Ct. 1182 , 152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Valeta-Mendoza
See, e.g., United States v. Vasquez-Flores, 265 F.3d 1122, 1123-25 (10th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1180 , 152 L.Ed.2d 123 (2002); United States v. Frias-Trujillo, 9 F.3d 875, 876-78 (10th Cir.1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Watson
v.
California
v.
California
No. 01-7699.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 25, 2002.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (1)
Ct. App. Cal., 4th Ápp. Dist. Certiorari denied.