green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
13.6 score
“although a failure properly to register a work does not invalidate the copyright itself, it does preclude the maintenance of an infringement action until such time as the purported copyright holder 'obtains a valid registration.”
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Roberts v. Gordy
although a failure properly to register a work does not invalidate the copyright itself, it does preclude the maintenance of an infringement action until such time as the purported copyright holder 'obtains a valid registration.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dahda
(2×)
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 914 (7th Cir.), overruled on other grounds, 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000). 6 For both reasons, the territorial limitations do not meaningfully curb the danger of forum shopping. 7 * * * In sum, we hold that the facial defects in the nine wiretap authorization orders did not require suppression.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Hector Feliciano(074395)
(2×)
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 914 (7th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, Jackson v. United States, 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000); United States v. Gaytan, 74 F.3d 545, 553 (5th Cir.1996); United States v. Bianco, 998 F.2d 1112, 1123-24 (2d Cir.1993) (interpreting analogous “roving bug” provision under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2518 (11)(a)), ce rt. denied, 511 U.S. 1069 , 114 S.Ct. 1644 , 128 L.Ed.2d 364 (1994); see also United States v. Silberman, 732 F.Supp. 1057, 1062-63 (S.D.Cal.1990), aff'd in part, vacated in part sub nom.
discussed
Cited "see"
Limestone Development v. Village of Lemont, Ill.
(2×)
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 914 (7th Cir.), vacated and remanded for reconsideration on unrelated grounds, 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Williams
(2×)
See Jackson v. United States, 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000). *766 For reasons that are not explained, it was almost four years before Williams had a new sentencing hearing.
discussed
Cited "see"
Lewis v. United States
(2×)
See 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Elwaldo R. James v. Rickie Harrison, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina
(2×)
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 918-19 (7th Cir.2000), vacated in part, 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000) (holding defense counsel’s absence did not constitute “abandonment by the lawyer of his client,” which “would require reversal irrespective of prejudice,” because counsel for co-defendants were present and generally protected the defendant’s interests).
discussed
Cited "see"
Haywood v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 922 (7th Cir.2000), vacated in part by 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000) (but not as to Haywood) (citing Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292, 307 , 116 S.Ct. 1241 , 134 L.Ed.2d 419 (1996)), reinstated by 236 F.3d 886 (7th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Yates
(2×)
See 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 .
examined
Cited "see"
Parks v. United States
(3×)
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 913 (7th Cir.2000), vacated in part by 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000) (but not as to Parks).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Larry Hoover, Tirenzy Wilson, Gregory Shell, Jerry Strawhorn, Adrian Bradd, Darrell Branch, Andrew Howard, and William Edwards
(3×)
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 915-18 (7th Cir.), remanded on other grounds, 121 S. Ct. 376 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Hoover, Larry
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 915-18 (7th Cir.), remanded on other grounds, 121 S. Ct. 376 (2000).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Guy J. Westmoreland
(4×)
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 920 (7th Cir.2000), cert. granted in part, and judgment vacated by — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Westmoreland, Guy
(2×)
See Jackson v. United States, 207 F.3d 910 , 920 (7th Cir. 2000), cert. granted in part, and judgment vacated by 121 S.Ct. 376 .
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Spears v. State
(4×)
See, e.g., Jackson v. U.S., 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000) (remanding to United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for “further consideration in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey ”); McCloud v. Florida, 531 U.S. 1063 , 121 S.Ct. 751 , 148 L.Ed.2d 654 (2001) (remanding to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sammy Knox v. United States
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 (7th Cir.2000), remanded, 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000), decision on remand, 236 F.3d 886 (2001).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Calvin Wayne Buckland
(4×)
See United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2000) (stating, shortly after Apprendi , that “Congress ... clearly intended that drug quantity be a sentencing factor, not an element of the crime under § 841,” and listing cases); see also, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 920 (7th Cir.) (stating, only a few months prior to Apprendi , that “[i]t is apparent that Congress intended the type and quantity of the drugs distributed by a defendant convicted under section 841(a) to be determined at sentencing”), judgment vacated and remanded for further consideration…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Calvin Wayne Buckland
(2×)
See United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2000) (stating, shortly after Apprendi , that “Congress ... clearly intended that drug quantity be a sentencing factor, not an element of the crime under § 841,” and listing cases); see also, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 920 (7th Cir.) (stating, only a few months prior to Apprendi , that “[i]t is apparent that Congress intended the type and quantity of the drugs distributed by a defendant convicted under section 841(a) to be determined at sentencing”), judgment vacated and remanded for further consideration…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Santiago-Vazquez
(2×)
United States v. Brough, 243 F.3d at 1079 ; see also United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 920 (7th Cir.2000) (describing Congress’ intent to have type and quantity of drugs used as sentencing factors by the judge), cert. granted in part, 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000), on remand to 236 F.3d 886 (7th Cir.2001), judgment reinstated by 236 F.3d 886 (7th Cir.2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fornaro
v.
State Farm Insurance Co.
v.
State Farm Insurance Co.
No. 00M29.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 30, 2000.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: S.D. Florida (1)
Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time under this Court’s Rule 14.5 denied.