green
Positive treatment
4.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Brown v. Sims
(2×)
See United States v. Roark, 753 F.2d 991 (11th Cir.1985), (citing United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700, 707 (5th Cir.)), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 128 , 62 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Daniel R. Zimmerman, A/K/A Bishop Zimmerman, A/K/A the Great Z
See id.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ronald Wayne Davis
(2×)
See United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700, 707 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 100 S.Ct. 128 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert Anthony Smith
(2×)
See United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 128 , 62 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lawton Scott Mock
(2×)
See United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700, 707 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 128 , 62 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979), or for evidence adding only a minor “incremental probity,” United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 914 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 920 , 99 S.Ct. 1244 , 59 L.Ed.2d 472 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Edward Ford, Robert Little, John Felix, Solomon Johnson, Phillip Usquiano, Marcus Thompson, E. Dene Armstrong
See United States v. Davidson, 597 F.2d 230, 233 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 861 , 100 S.Ct. 127 , 62 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979); Vincent v. Unit *1381 ed States, 337 F.2d 891, 894 (8th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 988 , 85 S.Ct. 1363 , 14 L.Ed.2d 281 (1965); Walton v. United States, 202 F.2d 18, 19-20 (D.C.Cir.1953).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruce R. WEST, Sr., Defendant-Appellant
(2×)
“The exclusion of evidence under Rule 403,” however, “should occur only sparingly.” United States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106, 1115 (5th Cir.1993); see also United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700, 707 (5th Cir.) (noting that Rule 403’s “major function is limited to excluding matter of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 128 , 62 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. West
(2×)
"The exclusion of evidence under Rule 403," however, "should occur only sparingly." United States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106, 1115 (5th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700, 707 (5th Cir.) (noting that Rule 403's "major function is limited to excluding matter of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect"), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S. Ct. 128 , 62 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Carl P. Fogel
See e.g., United States v. Davidson, 597 F.2d 230 (10th Cir.), cert, denied, 444 U.S. 861 , 100 S.Ct. 127 , 62 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979); United States v. Di Lorenzo, 429 F.2d 216 (2d Cir.1970), cert, denied, 402 U.S. 950 , 91 S.Ct. 1609 , 29 L.Ed.2d 120 (1971); Williams v. United States, 422 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir.1970); Vincent v. United States, 337 F.2d 891 (8th Cir.1964), cert, denied, 380 U.S. 988 , 85 S.Ct. 1363 , 14 L.Ed.2d 281 (1965); Rowley v. Welch, 114 F.2d 499 , 501 n. 3 (D.C.Cir. 1940).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Young
v.
Attorney General of New Mexico
v.
Attorney General of New Mexico
No. 78-6902.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 1979.
Cited by 88 opinions | Published
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.