green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1980 ·
…in these circumstances it is established that if the conviction is valid on either count, the judgment must be affirmed
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1916 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1916
1971
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. John L. Warren, Jr., David Defina, Des E. Schick and Thomas A. Warren
(2×)
in these circumstances it is established that if the conviction is valid on either count, the judgment must be affirmed
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Antranik Paroutian
(2×)
See Greene v. United States, 5 Cir., 154 F. 401 , certiorari denied 207 U.S. 596 , 28 S.Ct. 261 , 52 L.Ed. 357 . 14 Defendant launches a bitter attack, heavily larded with statistics, upon the conduct of the trial by the trial judge, and the extensive questioning of the witnesses by the court.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Vreeken
See also, Greene v. United States, 154 F.2d 401, 407-08 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 207 U.S. 596 , 28 S.Ct. 261 , 52 L.Ed. 357 (1907); Taylor v. Jackson, 470 F.Supp. 1290, 1292 (S.D.N.Y.1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Williams v. Ward
(2×)
See also Lackawanna Police Benevolent Ass'n v. Balen, 446 F.2d 52 (2 Cir. 1971) (per curiam), and cases cited in Mastracchio v. Ricci, 498 F.2d 1257 (1 Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 909 , 95 S.Ct. 828 , 42 L.Ed.2d 838 (1975) 5 In contrast to Halpern, see Kessler v. Armstrong Cork Co., 158 F. 744, 747-48 (2 Cir. 1907), cert. denied, 207 U.S. 597 -98, 28 S.Ct. 262 , 52 L.Ed. 357 (1908) 6 Though the criteria are phrased in § 213 and § 214(4) as necessary rather than sufficient conditions, Discretionary release on parole shall not be granted merely as a reward for good conduct or efficient …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. James Miller, A/K/A Frank James Coppola
We need not consider how far this same principle permitted proof of earlier observations of photographs, see United States v. Reed, 376 F.2d 226 (7 Cir. 1967); that subject was opened by the defense’s cross-examination of Caron, and the Government “was not bound to let the defendant bring out only what he pleased and be content itself with no more.” Vause v. United States, 53 F.2d 346, 352 (2 Cir.), cert, denied, 284 U.S. 661 , 52 S.Ct. 37 , 76 L.Ed. 560 (1931) ; see also Cohen v. United States, 157 F. 651, 656 (2 Cir.), cert, denied, 207 U.S. 596 , 28 S.Ct. 261 , 52 L.Ed. 357 (1907); Un…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Utah Consolidated Mining Company
v.
James Godfrey
v.
James Godfrey
No. 536.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 23, 1907.
Mr. Louis Marshall, Mr. George Sutherland, Mr. Waldemar Van Cott and Mr. Samuel Untermyer for petitioner. Mr. J. L. Rawlings and Mr. William H. King for respondents.
Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (2)
Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.