green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
9.5 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“It is ... beyond dispute that a jury may find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt from circumstantial evidence”
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Duran v. Pepe
it is ... beyond dispute that a jury may find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt from circumstantial evidence
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wlr Foods, Incorporated v. Tyson Foods, Incorporated
Nothing in the Williams Act says that the federal compromise among bidders, targets' managers, and investors is the only permissible one. 24 Id. at 503 (citation omitted). 25 The means by which the Williams Act achieves its purpose of protecting investors is by requiring disclosure of information in order to allow shareholders to make an informed decision and to prevent coercion in the tender offer context; Tyson has not shown that the Virginia statutes controvert the purpose of the Williams Act by removing protection from investors, for example by keeping information from the shareholders.
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Williams
See United States v. Fields, 871 F.2d 188, 195 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 (1989) (court credited fact that identification witness was police officer who, it could be inferred, was aware of importance of accurate identification).
cited
Cited "see"
United States of America Government of the Virgin Islands v. Michael McKie at No. 96-7010, Jermaine Hall, at No. 96-7011, Guy M. Henry, at No. 96-7014
See United States v. American Investors of Pittsburgh, Inc., 879 F.2d 1087, 1100 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 , 110 S.Ct. 368 , 107 L.Ed.2d 354 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. McKie
See United States v. American Investors of Pittsburgh, Inc., 879 F.2d 1087, 1100 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 , 107 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Plymouth Police Brotherhood v. Labor Relations Commission
See Alexander v. Labor Relations Comm’n, 404 Mass. 1005 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 (1989).
examined
Cited "see"
Tetra Technologies, Inc. v. Harter
(3×)
See Amanda Acquisition Corp. v. Universal Foods Corp., 877 F.2d 496 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 493 U.S. 955 , 110 S.Ct. 367 , 107 L.Ed.2d 353 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. Collins
See 874 F.2d at 247 n. 7. make the issue of the defendant's sanity so clear,[11] it is difficult to distill from that case a bright line test for determining what constitutes a sufficient showing." Volanty v. Lynaugh, 874 F.2d 243, 245 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 , 110 S.Ct. 369 , 107 L.Ed.2d 355 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. William Pollen
See United States v. American Investors of Pittsburgh, Inc., 879 F.2d 1087, 1100 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 , 110 S.Ct. 368 , 107 L.Ed.2d 354 (1989).
examined
Cited "see"
Government Suppliers Consolidating Services, Incorporated v. Bayh
(3×)
Order at 25 (citing CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 481 U.S. 69, 88 , 107 S.Ct. 1637, 1649 , 95 L.Ed.2d 67 (1987); see Amanda Acquisition Corp. v. Universal Foods Corp., 877 F.2d 496 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 , 110 S.Ct. 367 , 107 L.Ed.2d 353 (1989)). 46 However, a determination that a statute does not discriminate on its face and "purports to regulate evenhandedly" does not end the question of which scrutiny should apply.
examined
Cited "see"
Government Suppliers Consolidating Services, Inc. v. Bayh
(3×)
Order at 25 (citing CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 481 U.S. 69, 88 , 107 S.Ct. 1637, 1649 , 95 L.Ed.2d 67 (1987); see Amanda Acquisition Corp. v. Universal Foods Corp., 877 F.2d 496 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 , 110 S.Ct. 367 , 107 L.Ed.2d 353 (1989)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. McGlory
(2×)
Thus, it must establish “a ‘unity of purpose,’ intent to achieve a common goal, and an agreement to work together toward that goal.” United States v. Wexler, 838 F.2d 88, 90-91 (3d Cir.1988); see United States v. American Investors of Pittsburgh, Inc., 879 F.2d 1087, 1100 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 , 110 S.Ct. 368 , 107 L.Ed.2d 354 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Reginald D. McGlory Melvin Hauser, Norman Gomez, A/K/A Chubbs, Roland Slade, Norma Jean Pruitt, Vira Kulkivit, A/K/A Wee, Yongyos Thauthong, Willie J. Purdom and Charles Cotton. Vira Kulkovit, United States of America v. Reginald D. McGlory Melvin Hauser, Norman Gomez, A/K/A Chubbs, Roland Slade, Norma Jean Pruitt, Vira Kulkivit, A/K/A Wee, Yongyos Thauthong, Willie J. Purdom and Charles Cotton. Melvin Hauser, United States of America v. Reginald D. McGlory Melvin Hauser, Norman Gomez, A/K/A Chubbs, Roland Slade, Norma Jean Pruitt, Vira Kulkivit, A/K/A Wee, Yongyos Thauthong, Willie J. Purdom and Charles Cotton. Reginald D. McGlory United States of America v. Reginald D. McGlory Melvin Hauser, Norman Gomez, A/K/A Chubbs, Roland Slade, Norma Jean Pruitt, Vira Kulkivit, A/K/A Wee, Yongyos Thauthong, Willie J. Purdom and Charles Cotton. Charles Cotton
(2×)
Thus, it must establish "a 'unity of purpose,' intent to achieve a common goal, and an agreement to work together toward that goal." United States v. Wexler, 838 F.2d 88, 90-91 (3d Cir.1988); see United States v. American Investors of Pittsburgh, Inc., 879 F.2d 1087, 1100 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 , 110 S.Ct. 368 , 107 L.Ed.2d 354 (1989).
examined
Cited "see"
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Adams
(3×)
See Amanda Acquisition Corp. v. Universal Food Corp., 877 F.2d 496, 506 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 , 110 S.Ct. 367 , 107 L.Ed.2d 353 (1989).
examined
Cited "see"
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Adams
(3×)
See Amanda Acquisition Corp. v. Universal Food Corp., 877 F.2d 496, 506 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 , 110 S.Ct. 367 , 107 L.Ed.2d 353 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. McKee
To prove Defendants’ participation in the conspiracy, the government also had to establish “a ‘unity of purpose,’ intent to achieve a common goal, ...” United States v. Wexler, 838 F.2d 88, 90-91 (3d Cir.1988); see also United States v. American Investors of Pittsburgh, Inc., 879 F.2d 1087, 1100 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 , 110 S.Ct. 368 , 107 L.Ed.2d 354 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. McKee
To prove Defendants’ participation in the conspiracy, the government also had to establish “a ‘unity of purpose,’ intent to achieve a common goal, . . .” United States v. Wexler, 838 F.2d 88, 90-91 (3d Cir. 1988); see also United States v. American Investors of Pittsburgh, Inc., 879 F.2d 1087, 1100 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. McKee
To prove Defendants’ participation in the conspiracy, the government also had to establish “a ‘unity of purpose,’ intent to achieve a common goal, . . .” United States v. Wexler, 838 F.2d 88, 90-91 (3d Cir. 1988); see also United States v. American Investors of Pittsburgh, Inc., 879 F.2d 1087, 1100 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Trenkler
(2×)
Id.; see also United States v. Fields, 871 F.2d 188, 196 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 , 110 S.Ct. 369 , 107 L.Ed.2d 355 (1989). 2.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Nuckolls
See also United States v. American Investors of Pittsburgh, Inc., 879 F.2d 1087 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 , 110 S.Ct. 368 , 107 L.Ed.2d 354 (1989) (holding that the warrant which described categories of corporate records which were believed to evidence failure to file currency transaction reports was not overbroad given the complex nature of the money laundering enterprise); United States v. Henson, 848 F.2d 1374 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1005 , 109 S.Ct. 784 , 102 L.Ed.2d 776 (1989) (holding that the warrant which authorized a search for "any and all records ... and a…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. John Tejeda, United States of America v. Paul Christian
See, e.g., United States v. Shenker, 933 F.2d 61, 63 (1st Cir.1991) (district court should exclude evidence if relevant only to show bad character or propensity); see also United States v. Fields, 871 F.2d 188, 196 (1st Cir.) (evidentiary uses listed in Rule 404(b) not exhaustive), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 , 110 S.Ct. 369 , 107 L.Ed.2d 355 (1989). 3 In sum, Tomaski’s testimony that Tejeda possessed the same beeper through which a third party later attempted to facilitate a cocaine transaction tended to make it more likely that Tejeda’s presence during the cocaine transaction at Sun Foods…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Robert Irving Eyster, A/K/A Bobby, Jack Leroy Marshall
Id.; see also United States v. Roper, 874 F.2d 782, 787-88 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 867 , 110 S.Ct. 189 , 107 L.Ed.2d 144 and cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955 , 110 S.Ct. 369 , 107 L.Ed.2d 355 (1989). 14 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Amanda Acquisition Corp.
v.
Universal Foods Corp.
v.
Universal Foods Corp.
No. 89-372.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 6, 1989.
Published
Citer courts: D. Massachusetts (1)
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.