green
Positive treatment
2.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
State v. Allan
See United States v. Brown, supra, 726 F.3d 998 ; United States v. Boidi, supra, 568 F.3d 30 ; United States v. Parker, supra, 554 F.3d 236 ; but see United States v. Curley, 55 F.3d 254, 257 (7th Cir.) (‘‘[t]he law does not require the govern- ment to prove that a defendant had a stake in a drug distribution venture to gain a conviction for conspir- acy’’), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 870 , 116 S. Ct. 190 , 133 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Osborne v. Miller
See generally United States v. Wong, 40 F.3d 1347, 1360 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 870 , 116 S.Ct. 190 , 133 L.Ed.2d 127 (1995) (holding that a thirty-one month delay could be outweighed by other indicia of reliability); Brown, 299 F.Supp.2d at 80 (“[A] two month lag between the incident and initial confrontation is not fatal.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brown v. Tracy
See United States v. Wong, 40 F.3d 1347, 1360 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied 516 U.S. 870 , 116 S.Ct. 190 , 133 L.Ed.2d 127 (1995) (allowing identification following two to three second observation), United States v. Mohammed, 27 F.3d 815, 821-822 , ce rt. denied, 513 U.S. 975 , 115 S.Ct. 451 , 130 L.Ed.2d 360 (1994) (thirty second observation), United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Velazquez v. Poole
In determining whether a photo array is impermissibly suggestive, the courts look to a number of factors, including the number of individuals displayed in the photo array, and “whether the picture of the accused, matching descriptions given by the witness, so stood out from all of the other photographs as to ‘suggest to an identifying witness that [that person] was more likely to be the culprit.’ ” Jarrett v. Headley, 802 F.2d 34, 41 (2d Cir.1986) (quoting United States v. Archibald, 734 F.2d 938, 940 (2d Cir.), modified by, 756 F.2d 223 (2d Cir.1984)); see also United States v. Wong, …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. James
In determining whether a photo array is impermissibly suggestive, the courts look to a number of factors, including the number of individuals displayed in the photo array, and “whether the picture of the accused, matching descriptions given by the witness, so stood out from all of the other photographs as to ‘suggest to an identifying witness that [that person] was more likely to be the culprit.’ ” Jarrett v. Headley, 802 F.2d 34, 41 (2d Cir.1986) (quoting United States v. Archibald, 734 F.2d 938, 940 (2d Cir.1984), modified, 756 F.2d 223 (2d Cir.1984)); see also United States v. Wong,…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McDougall v. Havlen
Compare Walton v. Lee, 888 S.W.2d 604 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1994, writ denied), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 870 , 116 S.Ct. 190 , 133 L.Ed.2d 127 (1995) with Knowles v. Knowles, 811 S.W.2d 709 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1991, no writ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Delvalle
See, e.g., United States v. Wong, 40 F.3d 1347, 1382 (2d Cir.1994) (“it is well established that a district court should consider a defendant’s potential for rehabilitation in determining a sentence”) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a)(1), (2)(D)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 190 , 133 L.Ed.2d 127 (1995); United States v. Barton, 76 F.3d 499, 503 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Guiro, 887 F.Supp. 66 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (5K1.1 and prospects for rehabilitation grounds for downward departure); United States v. Neiman, 828 F.Supp. 254 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (downward departure based on prospects for r…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EUREKA LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant
See United States v. Haggard, 41 F.3d 1320, 1329 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Robinson, 20 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir.1994) (concluding that evidence in record was “sufficiently strong and uncontradicted that the district court would be compelled to conclude that the defendants had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that they were presently unable to pay fines.”); see also United States v. Wong, 40 F.3d 1347, 1383 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 190 , 133 L.Ed.2d 127 (1995) (stating that sentencing guidelines do not authorize “the imposition of a fine despite a show…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Samonte
Where jury anonymity has been warranted, courts have “found the defendant’s fundamental right to an unbiased jury is adequately protected by the court’s conduct of a voir dire designed to uncover bias as to issues in the cases and as to the defendant himself.” Paccione, 949 F.2d at 1192 (quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Vario, 943 F.2d 236, 242 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1036 , 112 S.Ct. 882 , 116 L.Ed.2d 786 (1992) and United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 140 (2d Cir. *522 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 907 , 100 S.Ct. 1833 , 64 L.Ed.2d 260 (1980)); see a…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COGGESHALL DEVELOPMENT CORP. and Coggeshall Marina, Inc.
v.
UNITED STATES
v.
UNITED STATES
No. 95-231.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 2, 1995.
Published
No opinion found. Click here to view source material.