green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.6 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Smart v. Leeke
because proof of self-defense constitutes an absolute defense in that it renders the homicide justifiable, any error in the trial court's instruction concerning self-defense was necessarily prejudicial.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Duke
See State v. Moeller, 178 Conn. 67 , 420 A.2d 1153 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S. Ct. 423 , 62 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Radzvilowicz
Co., 82 Conn. 352, 365 , 73 A. 754 (1909); see State v. Moeller, 178 Conn. 67, 71 , 420 A.2d 1153 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S. Ct. 423 , 62 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Rosas ex rel. Perez v. McMahon
See Kimble v. Solomon, 599 F.2d 599 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 422 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1979) (notice regulations violated when notices sent to Medicaid recipients after the effective date of a curtailment in Medicaid coverage); Rochester v. Baganz, 479 F.2d 603 (3rd Cir.1973) (notice regulations violated when the state implemented an across-the-board 11.7% reduction in AFDC benefits without providing 10 days advance notice to recipients); Budnicki v. Beal, 450 F.Supp. 546, 552 (E.D.Pa.1978) (notice regulations violated when state eliminated orthopedic shoes as a Medicaid …
discussed
Cited "see"
ca3 1991
See Kimble v. Solomon, 599 F.2d 599 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 422 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1979) (notice regulations violated when notices sent to Medicaid recipients after the effective date of a curtailment in Medicaid coverage); Rochester v. Baganz, 479 F.2d 603 (3rd Cir.1973) (notice regulations violated when the state implemented an across-the-board 11.7% reduction in AFDC benefits without providing 10 days advance notice to recipients); Budnicki v. Beal, 450 F.Supp. 546, 552 (E.D.Pa.1978) (notice regulations violated when state eliminated orthopedic shoes as a Medicaid …
discussed
Cited "see"
Turner v. Ledbetter
See Kimble v. Solomon, 599 F.2d 599, 604 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 422 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1979) (because of failure to give notice required by federal regulations, state had not "instituted a legally effective reduction in ... benefits").
discussed
Cited "see"
Turner v. Ledbetter
See Kimble v. Solomon, 599 F.2d 599, 604 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 422 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1979) (because of failure to give notice required by federal regulations, state had not “instituted a legally effective reduction in ... benefits”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bloomington National Bank v. Telfer
The Court must decide whether the Comptroller’s action was “not in accordance with law, ... contrary to constitutional right, ... [or] in excess of statutory ... authority.” Id. § 706(2)(A)-(C); see First Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Heimann, 600 F.2d 91, 95 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 423 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1979); Webster Groves Trust Co. v. Saxon, 370 F.2d 381, 387 (8th Cir.1966) (if Comptroller “acts in excess of his statutory grant of power” or violates the Constitution, he is “subject to restraint by the courts”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Talton
Further, although, as pointed out by the state, this appeal was not taken after the imposition of sentence, we determine that we have jurisdiction. 8 That deter mination is made because the consequences of the trial court’s ruling place this case squarely within that narrow exception to the final judgment rule that allows an appeal of interlocutory trial court rulings that, if erroneous, cannot later be remedied by the reversal of a conviction after trial; State v. Herring, supra; State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 33-34 , 463 A.2d 566 (1983); State v. Lloyd, supra, 206-208 ; State v. Grotton, 1…
cited
Cited "see"
Slaughter v. Levine
See Kimble v. Solomon, 599 F.2d 599, 604 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 422 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Slaughter v. Levine
See Kimble v. Solomon, 599 F.2d 599, 604 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 422 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Theodore Griffin v. George N. Martin, Iii, Warden Attorney General of the State of S. C.
See Wynn v. Mahoney, 600 F.2d 448 , 451 n. 4 (4th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 423 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1979). .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Van Sant
“Although the Connecticut constitution contains no specific double jeopardy provision, the due process guarantees of article first, § 8, have been held to include such a protection.” State v. Rawls, 198 Conn. 111 , 113 n.3, 502 A.2d 374 (1985); see State v. Moeller, 178 Conn. 67, 77 , 420 A.2d 1153 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S. Ct. 423 , 62 L.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Richard A. Rosen, Robert Esson Rew and David Benton Holmes
See United States v. Whitaker, 592 F.2d 826, 831 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 422 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Pellegrino
See United States v. Whitaker, 592 F.2d 826, 830-31 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S. Ct. 422 , 62 L.
examined
Cited "see"
Walter A. Guthrie, 117801 v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Wynn v. Mahoney, 600 F.2d 448, 450 (4 Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 423 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Whitmore
See United States v. Whitaker, 592 F.2d 826 (5th Cir.) [document check of vessel in inland waterway reasonable where vessel was followed from customs waters], cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 422 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1979); United States v. Postal, 589 F.2d 862 (5th Cir. 1979) [routine document check of vessel within 12-mile limit without articulable suspicion]; United States v. Freeman, 579 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1978) [stop for document check two and eight-tenths miles off coast reasonable in absence of even a modicum of suspicion].
cited
Cited "see"
Boyd v. LeFevre
See United States v. Gibbons, 602 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 421 , 62 L.Ed.2d 319 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Morrison
See United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 529 , 62 L.Ed.2d 425 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Donald Jonas
See United States v. Whitaker, 592 F.2d 826, 830-31 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 422 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Roldan Guillen-Linares, Sergio Delrio-Buentes, Tomas Gonzalez, Felix Valle, Raul Delrio-Boquet, and Raul Peralta
See United States v. Whitaker, 592 F.2d 826, 829 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 422 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Cooper
There is no constitutional prohibition against a state prosecution for the same acts which resulted in a federal prosecution ... or vice versa.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Haskins, 188 Conn. 432, 472 , 450 A.2d 828 (1982). “[N]either federal nor state law bar[s] sequential prosecution in our state courts for an offense for which the defendant had been acquitted or convicted in a federal court.” Id.; see also State v. Moeller, 178 Conn. 67, 69-70 , 420 A.2d 1153 , cert, denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S. Ct. 423 , 62 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
J.K. ex rel. R.K. v. Dillenberg
See Banks v. Secretary of the Indian Family and Social Services Administration, 997 F.2d 231 (7th Cir.1993) (provider reimbursement determinations do not prompt due process concerns); compare Kimble v. Solomon, 599 F.2d 599 (4th Cir.) cert, denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 422 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1979); (notice and hearing required when a state changes its law to reduce or eliminate grants for classes of recipients).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
JK by and Through RK v. Dillenberg
See Banks v. Secretary of the Indian Family and Social Services Administration, 997 F.2d 231 (7th Cir.1993) (provider reimbursement determinations do not prompt due process concerns); compare Kimble v. Solomon, 599 F.2d 599 (4th Cir.) cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 422 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1979); (notice and hearing required when a state changes its law to reduce or eliminate grants for classes of recipients).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Persico
United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1362-65 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Rosado, 82 Cr. 463 (E.D.N.Y.1983), aff'd, 728 F.2d 89 , 94-95 *878 (2d Cir.1984); see also United States v. Gibbons, 602 F.2d 1044, 1050-52 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 421 , 62 L.Ed.2d 319 (1979), any application to do so must be carefully considered to protect the defendants from any risk of undue prejudice.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ca4 1983
See also Kimble v. Solomon, 599 F.2d 599, 603 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 422 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1979). 20 Alleged federal questions that are, in fact, merely defenses to be raised in the pending state action cannot form the basis of federal question jurisdiction.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Aluminum Co. of America v. Utilities Commission
See also Kimble v. Solomon, 599 F.2d 599, 603 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950 , 100 S.Ct. 422 , 62 L.Ed.2d 320 (1979).
Gibbons
v.
United States and Perry v. United States
v.
United States and Perry v. United States
No. 79-283; No. 79-5256.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 13, 1979.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: D. South Carolina (1)
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 F. 2d 1044.