green
Positive treatment
4.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Harmon
See Commonwealth v. Beasley, 544 Pa. 554, 565 , 678 A.2d 773, 778 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1121 , 117 S.Ct. 1257 , 137 L.Ed.2d 337 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Williams
(2×)
See generally Commonwealth v. Rucci, 543 Pa. 261, 283 , 670 A.2d 1129, 1140 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1121 , 117 S.Ct. 1257 , 137 L.Ed.2d 337 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lampton
See United States v. Denman, 100 F.3d 399 (5th Cir.1996), cert. denied. — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1256 , 137 L.Ed.2d 336 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Taylor
See Commonwealth v. Beasley, 544 Pa. 554, 566 , 678 A.2d 773, 778 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1121 , 117 S.Ct. 1257 , 137 L.Ed.2d 337 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Eric Reinholz
Stone v. Powell, -10- 428 U.S. 465, 486-89 (1976) (holding deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations by law enforcement personnel is the prime purpose of the exclusionary rule); see also United States v. Fletcher, 91 F.3d 48, 52 (8th Cir. 1996) (same), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1121 (1997); Williams v. Nix, 700 F.2d 1164, 1174 (8th Cir. 1983) (same), rev'd on other grounds, 467 U.S. 431 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Eric B. Reinholz Margaret E. Chevalier
Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 486-89 , 96 S.Ct. 3037 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976) (holding deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations by law enforcement personnel is the prime purpose of the exclusionary rule); see also United States v. Fletcher, 91 F.3d 48, 52 (8th Cir.1996) (same), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1121 , 117 S.Ct. 1258 , 137 L.Ed.2d 338 (1997); Williams v. Nix, 700 F.2d 1164, 1174 (8th Cir.1983) (same), rev’d on other grounds, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Furnish v. United States
The enhancement for possession of a firearm is appropriate "if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense." U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1), application note 3; see also United States v. Tauil-Hernandez, 88 F.3d 576, 580 (8th Cir.1996) ("The crucial inquiry is whether `it is not clearly improbable that the weapon had a nexus with the criminal activity'") (citing United States v. Richmond, 37 F.3d 418, 419 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1178 , 115 S.Ct. 1163 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1119 (1995)), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1121 , 117 S.Ct. 1258 , 137 L.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. McCormick
See, e.g., United States v. Denman, 100 F.3d 399, 403 (5th Cir.1996) (noting that in Nelson "the court did not rule out the possibility that the initial listening to the recording by the intercepting agent might also be considered part of the interception"), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 1256 , 137 L.Ed.2d 336 (1997); accord United States v. Tavarez, 40 F.3d 1136 , 1138 n. 1 (10th Cir.1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Antonio Perez
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 96-1266.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 17, 1997.
Published
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.