green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
10.1 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1996 ·
…inference discussed in cipollone is rebuttable
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hernandez-Gomez v. Leonardo
(2×)
inference discussed in cipollone is rebuttable
discussed
Cited "see"
Chavez-Rivas v. Olsen
See Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. v. Gaus, 61 F.3d 929 , 936 n. 36 (D.C.Cir.1995) (citing Food Chemical News v. Young, 900 F.2d 328, 332-33 (D.C.Cir.1990)), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1112 , 116 S.Ct. 910 , 133 L.Ed.2d 841 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles Edwin Davidson, United States of America v. Earnes Lee Smith, United States of America v. Dwayne Harold Smith
(2×)
See United States v. Brown, 53 F.3d 312, 314-15 (11th Cir.1995), cert. denied, —U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 909 , 133 L.Ed.2d 841 (1996); United States v. Zafiro, 945 F.2d 881, 888 (7th Cir.1991), aff'd on other grounds, 506 U.S. 534 , 113 S.Ct. 933 , 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sobieck
See generally United States v. Baird, 63 F.3d 1213 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 909 , 133 L.Ed.2d 841 (1996); United States v. Cretacci, 62 F.3d 307 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 2528 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1052 (1996); United States v. Penny, 60 F.3d 1257 (7th Cir.1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 931 , 133 L.Ed.2d 858 (1996); United States v. Arreola-Ramos, 60 F.3d 188 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. Torres, 28 F.3d 1463 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1059 , 115 S.Ct. 669 , 130 L.Ed.2d 603 (1994); United States v. Doyer, 907 F.Supp. 1519…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Barone
See United States v. Alzanki, 54 F.3d 994, 1008 (1st Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 909 , 133 L.Ed.2d 841 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Young
See United States v. Alzanki, 54 F.3d 994, 1008 (1st Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 909 , 133 L.Ed.2d 841 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bell v. Veterans Administration
See Zuspann v. Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1158-60 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 909 , 133 L.Ed.2d 841 (1996); see also Hall v. U.S. Department Veterans’ Affairs, 85 F.3d 532, 534-35 (11th Cir.1996); Larrabee v. Derwinski, 968 F.2d 1497 , 1499-1501 (2d Cir.1992); Hicks v. Veterans Administration, 961 F.2d 1367, 1369-70 (8th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Tuipuapua
See United States v. Baird, 63 F.3d 1213, 1218-19 (3d Cir.1995), cert. de *147 nied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 909 , 133 L.Ed.2d 841 (1996), reh’g denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1371 , 134 L.Ed.2d 536 (1996); United States v. Cretacci, 62 F.3d 307, 310-11 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2528 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1052 (1996); United States v. Arreola-Ramos, 60 F.3d 188, 192-93 (5th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Tokars
See United States v. Brown, 53 F.3d 312, 314 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 909 , 133 L.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Tokars
See United States v. Brown, 53 F.3d 312, 314 (11th Cir.1995), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 909 , 133 L.Ed.2d 841 (1996). 17 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Brigido Marmolejo, Jr. And Mario Salinas
(2×)
See United States v. Baird, 63 F.3d 1213, 1217 (3d Cir.1995) ("Where no person files a claim to the seized property within the statutory period, the agency is authorized to declare the property forfeited.") (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1609 (b) and 21 C.F.R. § 1316.77 ) (emphasis added), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 909 , 133 L.Ed.2d 841 (1996); cf. Arreola-Ramos, 60 F.3d at 190 (stating that once the time for making a claim and posting a bond has expired, the seizing agency automatically issues a declaration of forfeiture).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Various Computers and Computer Equipment, Paris Francis Lundis
(2×)
See United States v. Baird, 63 F.3d 1213, 1215 (3rd Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 909 , 133 L.Ed.2d 841 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Marmolejo
(2×)
See United States v. Baird, 63 F.3d 1213, 1217 (3d Cir.1995) (‘Where no person files a claim to the seized property within the statutory period, the agency is authorized to declare the property forfeited.”) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1609 (b) and 21 C.F.R. § 1316.77 ) (emphasis added), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 909 , 133 L.Ed.2d 841 (1996); cf. Arreola-Ramos, 60 F.3d at 190 (stating that once the time for making a claim and posting a bond has expired, the seizing agency automatically issues a declaration of forfeiture).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gary R. Morgan
See United States v. Baird, 63 F.3d 1213, 1218 (3d Cir.1995) (citations and quotations omitted), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 909 , 133 L.Ed.2d 841 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. 152 Char-Nor Manor Blvd. Chestertown, Md.
“The [United States Supreme] Court has consistently adhered to the view that jeopardy does not attach, and the constitutional prohibition can have no application, until a defendant is ‘put to trial before the trier of facts, whether the trier be a jury or a judge.’ ” Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 388 , 95 S.Ct. 1055, 1062 , 43 L.Ed.2d 265 (1975) (quoting United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 479 , 91 S.Ct. 547, 554 , 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971)); accord United States v. Baird, 63 F.3d 1213, 1218 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 909 , 133 L.Ed.2d 841 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert S. Stoller
See United States v. Baird, 63 F.3d 1213 , 1215 & n. 4 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 909 , 133 L.Ed.2d 841 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hampel v. United States
See, e.g., Zuspann v. Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1159-1160 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1111 , 116 S.Ct. 909 , 133 L.Ed.2d 841 (1996) ("Congress has set up an exclusive review procedure for decisions involving veterans benefits determinations, and the district court in this case correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear [plaintiff's] challenge to the VA's decision to deny him benefits.”); Sheppard v. Geren, No. 07cv1279, 2008 WL 4919460 , at *3 (E.D.Va.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Sullivan
It is well-settled in this circuit that arguments which an appellant failed to raise in contemporaneous objections below are effectively forfeited on appeal and reversible only if ah appellant can establish “plain error.” United States v. Winter, 70 F.3d 655, 659 (1st Cir.1995), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1366 , 134 L.Ed.2d 532 (1996); see also United States v. Alzanki, 54 F.3d 994, 1003 (1st Cir.1995), cert. denied, - *688 U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 909 , 133 L.Ed.2d 841 (1996); United States v. Ghiffin, 818 F.2d 97, 100 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 844 , 108 S.Ct. 137 , 98 L.Ed.2d 94…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Qantas Airways Ltd.
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 95-713.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 20, 1996.
Published
Citer courts: Arizona Supreme Court (2)
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.