green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
11.7 score
“it is implausible that the would have gone through the cumbersome process of amending its regulation ... only to re-amend the regula 228 tion after this ease is resolved”
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Linchpins of Liberty v. United States of America
it is implausible that the would have gone through the cumbersome process of amending its regulation ... only to re-amend the regulation after this case is resolved....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
True the Vote, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service
it is implausible that the would have gone through the cumbersome process of amending its regulation ... only to re-amend the regula 228 tion after this ease is resolved
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Tinsley
Accordingly, pursu- ant to the second step of Blockburger, we now turn to whether risk of injury to a child is a lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree, rendering them the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. ‘‘Our case law has been consistent and unequivocal’’ that the second step of Blockburger ‘‘is a technical one and examines only the statutes, charging instruments, and bill of particulars as opposed to the evidence pre- sented at trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Porter, supra, 328 Conn. 656 ; accord State v. Bernacki, 307 Con…
discussed
Cited "see"
Note Investment Group, Inc. v. Associates First Capital Corp.
Bd. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 310 F.3d 870, 877 (5th Cir.2002); see United States v. Renda Marine, Inc., 667 F.3d 651, 659 (5th Cir.2012), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 1800 , 185 L.Ed.2d 811 (2013); Exxon Corp. v. Oxxford Clothes, Inc., 109 F.3d 1070, 1074 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 915 , 118 S.Ct. 299 , 139 L.Ed.2d 231 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Shenkman
See State v. Bernacki, 307 Conn. 1 , 9, 52 A.3d 605 (2012), cert. denied, U.S. , 133 S. Ct. 1804 , 185 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Enrrique H.
Because the legislature added the relevant 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7 0 Conn. 1 ,0 9 State v. Enrrique H. statutory language in 2001; see, e.g., State v. Bernacki, 307 Conn. 1 , 28, 52 A.3d 605 (2012) (‘‘[t]he legislature enacted [what is now] § 53a-217 (a) [4] (A) as part of Public Acts 2001, No. 01-130, § 15’’), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 918 , 133 S. Ct. 1804 , 185 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
White v. FCW Law Offices
Ed. 2d 811 (2013); see, e.g., id., 29–30; so, too, the law sometimes provides a civil claimant multiple, cumulative remedies to redress different or distinctive types of harm, even if precipi- tated by a single incident.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Moore (Order on Motion)
(2×)
See General Statutes § 1-2z; see also State v. Bernacki, 307 Conn. 1 , 22 n.15, 52 A.3d 605 (2012) (forms ‘‘promulgated by the [J]udicial [B]ranch for the convenience of liti- gants and the bench’’ are not binding on courts when construing statutes), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 918 , 133 S. Ct. 1804 , 185 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Jose A. B.
We therefore turn to the defendant’s argument under step two, that is, that risk of injury to a child is a lesser included offense of sexual assault in the first and fourth degrees. ‘‘Our case law has been consistent and unequivocal’’ that the second step of Blockburger ‘‘is a technical one and examines only the statutes, charging instruments, and bill of particulars as opposed to the evidence pre- sented at trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Porter, supra, 328 Conn. 656 ; see, e.g., State v. Bernacki, 307 Conn. 1 , 9, 52 A.3d 605 (2012), cert. denied, 569 …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. James E.
See, e.g., State v. Bernacki, 122 Conn. App. 399, 403 , 998 A.2d 262 (2010), aff’d, 307 Conn. 1 , 52 A.3d 605 (2012), cert. denied, U.S. , 133 S. Ct. 1804 , 185 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RENDA MARINE, INC.
v.
UNITED STATES.
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 12–699..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 15, 2013.
Published
Citer courts: District of Columbia (2)
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.