green
Positive treatment
5.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Yannai
See generally United States v. Scopo, 861 F.2d 339, 349 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1048 , 109 S.Ct. 1957 , 104 L.Ed.2d 426 (1989); United *247 States v. Gaggi, 811 F.2d 47, 51 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 929 , 107 S.Ct. 3214 , 96 L.Ed.2d 701 (1987); United States v. Gigante, 729 F.2d 78, 82 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1206 , 104 S.Ct. 2390 , 81 L.Ed.2d 348 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Cambridge Plating v. NAPCO, Inc.
See Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Clark County, 857 ___ _______________________ ____________ F.2d 606, 614 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1048 _____ ______ (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Cambridge Plating Co. v. Napco, Inc.
See Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Clark County, 857 F.2d 606, 614 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1048 , 109 S.Ct. 1957 , 104 L.Ed.2d 426 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Collins v. United States
See Bodine v. United States, 14 Cl.Ct. 661, 664 , aff'd, 865 F.2d 269 (Fed.Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1048 , 109 S.Ct. 1958 , 104 L.Ed.2d 427 (1989); Thaxton v. United States, 11 Cl.Ct. 181, 182 (1986); Chapman v. United States, 204 Ct.Cl. 815 , 816, 1974 WL 5601 (1974); Landman v. United States, 196 Ct.Cl. 778, 778 , 1971 WL 4160 (1971); Hall v. United States, 166 Ct.Cl. 601, 601 , 1964 WL 1595 (1964); Nolen v. United States, 124 Ct.Cl. 230, 232 , 109 F.Supp. 391 (1953).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rudolph Santobello and Charles Desalvo, Also Known as Charlie
See United States v. Scopo, 861 F.2d 339, 348 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1048 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Perry v. Norris
See United States v. Scopo, 861 F.2d 339, 348 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1048 , 109 S.Ct. 1957 , 104 L.Ed.2d 426 (1989); cf. United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490 , 498 n. 8 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 918 , 97 S.Ct. 2182 , 53 L.Ed.2d 229 (1977). 20 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Isidro Aispuro-Angulo
See United States v. Scopo, 861 F.2d 339, 348 (2d Cir.1988) (statement was against interest because it exposed declarant to criminal liability, although declarant was terminally ill at time he made statement), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1048 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mildred Banks v. United States Postal Service
Courts recognizing such review, however, note that it "is narrowly limited to an inquiry as to whether the Postal Service substantially complied with applicable procedures, whether its actions were arbitrary or capricious, and whether its decision was supported by substantial evidence." Id. at 961 . 25 More recently, however, other courts have held that "nonpreference eligible Postal Service employees have neither a statutory nor nonstatutory right to judicial review of adverse personnel actions." Yokum v. United States Postal Service, 877 F.2d 276, 278 (4th Cir.1989); see also Royals v. Tisch…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oliver v. United States
The district court’s instruction on the burden of proof failed to explain that the government has the initial burden of proof on its counterclaim. “ ‘[W]hen an appellate court ponders the probable effect of an error on a civil trial, it need only find that the jury’s verdict is more probably than not untainted by the error.’ ” Lucero v. Stewart, 892 F.2d 52, 55 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Haddad v. Lockheed Cal. Corp., 720 F.2d 1454, 1459 (9th Cir.1983)); see also Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Clark County, 857 F.2d 606, 612 (9th Cir.1988) (“erroneous instructions ‘need only be more p…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Herbert Oliver, Sr., and Mary L. Oliver v. United States of America, Herbert Oliver, Sr. Mary L. Oliver, and Geoffrey P. Chism and Stanislaw, Ashbaugh, Chism, Jacobson & Riper v. United States of America, Herbert Oliver, Sr. Mary L. Oliver v. United States v. Ronald P. Baker Old National Bank of Washington, Third-Party-Defendants
Thereafter, the burden shifted to Mary Oliver to show that she was not liable for the assessment. 12 The district court's instruction on the burden of proof failed to explain that the government has the initial burden of proof on its counterclaim. " '[W]hen an appellate court ponders the probable effect of an error on a civil trial, it need only find that the jury's verdict is more probably than not untainted by the error.' " Lucero v. Stewart, 892 F.2d 52, 55 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Haddad v. Lockheed Cal. Corp., 720 F.2d 1454, 1459 (9th Cir.1983)); see also Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Clark C…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bodine
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 88-1641.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 1, 1989.
490 U.S. 1048
Published
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.