green
Positive treatment
3.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
In re J.S.
See In re PSE & G Co.’s Rate Unbundling, 330 N.J.Super. 65, 132 , 748 A.2d 1161 (App.Div.2000) (“The purpose of rulemaking is to give the public notice of anticipated agency action and an opportunity to participate and comment on the action before it becomes final as well as to give the agency the benefit of the information that the public has to offer.”) (citing Metromedia, Inc., v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 97 N.J. 313, 331 , 478 A.2d 742 (1984)), aff'd, 167 N.J. 377 , 771 A.2d 1163 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 813 , 122 S.Ct. 37 , 151 L.Ed.2d 11 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Garcia-Duarte
See United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310, 315 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 813 , 122 S.Ct. 37 , 151 L.Ed.2d 11 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Drury
See United States v. Richeson, 338 F.3d 653 (7th Cir.2003) (holding that the defendant’s making of intrastate telephone calls, standing alone, satisfied § 1958’s jurisdictional requirement because “when Congress elects to regulate under the second prong of Lopez, ‘federal jurisdiction is supplied by the nature of the instrumentality or facility used, not by separate proof of interstate movement’ ” (quoting United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310, 317 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 813 , 122 S.Ct. 37 , 151 L.Ed.2d 11 (2001))); Marek, 238 F.3d at 320 (“[W]hen a facility…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Drury
See United States v. Richeson, 338 F.3d 653 (7th Cir.2003) (holding that the defendant's making of intrastate telephone calls, standing alone, satisfied § 1958's jurisdictional requirement because "when Congress elects to regulate under the second prong of Lopez , `federal jurisdiction is supplied by the nature of the instrumentality or facility used, not by separate proof of interstate movement'" (quoting United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310, 317 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 813 , 122 S.Ct. 37 , 151 L.Ed.2d 11 (2001))); Marek, 238 F.3d at 320 ("[W]hen a facility employed to a…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bp Products North America Inc.
“The quantum of evidence needed to supply a factual basis is not specified in the rule, but it is clear that it takes less evidence than would be needed to sustain a conviction at trial.” 1A Charles A. Wright et al„ Federal Practice And Procedure-Criminal § 179 (4th ed.2008). “[A] district judge satisfies th[is] requirement ... when he ‘determine^] that the *676 conduct which the defendant admits constitutes the offense charged in the indictment or information or an offense included therein to which the defendant has pleaded guilty.’ ” Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 38 …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Co-Steel Raritan
v.
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
v.
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
No. 00-1393.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 2001.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.