green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
12.6 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1986 ·
…where there is probable cause to find that there exists a pervasive scheme to defraud, all the business records of an enterprise may be seized, if they are ... accurately described....
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1985 ·
…while courts have held that the cfta preempts state regulation of commodity futures, ... it has also been held that the cfta does not preempt state general antifraud statutes.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Zanche
(2×)
See United States v. Abrams, supra; United States v. Roche, 614 F.2d 6 (1st Cir. 1980); Application of Lafayette Academy, 610 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1979); but cf. United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 309 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980) (where there is probable cause that pervasive fraud scheme existed, all the business records of a business may be seized if accurately described).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Matter of 949 Erie Street, Racine, Wis.
(2×)
where there is probable cause to find that there exists a pervasive scheme to defraud, all the business records of an enterprise may be seized, if they are ... accurately described....
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mallen v. Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc.
(2×)
while courts have held that the cfta preempts state regulation of commodity futures, ... it has also been held that the cfta does not preempt state general antifraud statutes.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Commodity And Barter Association v. Glenn L. Archer
The ruling was premised on a showing that facts presented to the magistrate warranted a strong belief that the company's operation was "solely and entirely" a scheme to defraud and there was probable cause to find "a pervasive scheme to defraud." Id. at 308-09.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Commodity & Barter Ass'n v. Archer
The ruling was premised on a showing that facts presented to the magistrate warranted a strong belief that the company’s operation was “solely and entirely” a scheme to defraud and there was probable cause to find “a pervasive scheme to defraud.” Id. at 308-09.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribe
(2×)
We caution, however, that while Brien suggests that statutes may never be impliedly repealed in part, see id. at 309, more recent cases clarify the point, see, e.g., Bristol Energy Corp. v. New Hampshire PUC, 13 F.3d 471, 477 (1st Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Forrest G. English and Robert M. Owens v. William J. Cowell, Donald Siddens, Charles J. Connor
S.Ct. 1853, 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980); Howard, 560 F.2d at 22 (after complying with section 101(a)(5)’s procedural safeguards, a union may expel a member if it should determine that the member’s conduct creates “cause for expulsion under its own constitution”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,907 United States v. Thomas A. Faulhaber
We concluded that in criminal, unlike tortious, fraud, “[t]he only issue is whether there is a plan, scheme or artifice intended to defraud.” Id. at 311.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. The Offices Known as 50 State Distributing Co.
(2×)
Id. at 308.
discussed
Cited "see"
Munoz v. Strahm Farms
See United States v. Basey, 613 F.2d 198 , 201 n. 1 (9th Cir.1979) ("It is unimportant under Fed.R.Evid. 803(6) that the custodian did not herself record the information or know who recorded the information."), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 274 (1980); see also Saks Int'l, 817 F.2d at 1013 (a regular practice of receiving information from another person obviates the need to identify that person).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Johnson
(2×)
See National City Trading Corp. v. United States, 635 F.2d 1020, 1026 (2d Cir.1980) (citing United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 309 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mason Tenders District Council v. Laborers' International Union
See Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies’ Garment Cutters’ Local 10, 605 F.2d 1228 , 1244-45 (2d Cir.1979) (noting that such a result leaves open the question of damages plaintiff may have suffered between the outcome of the defective proceeding and the curative de novo one), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Demerath Land Company, a Nebraska Corporation v. Steve Sparr Eugene Boes Farmers Cooperative Exchange, a Nebraska Cooperative Association
(2×)
See Goodman, 984 F.2d at 237 (“‘[t]he essence of a scheme is a plan to deceive persons as to the substantial identity of the things they are to receive in exchange’” (quoting United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 307 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980))).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brenda S. Collison v. International Chemical Workers Union, Local 217 International Chemical Workers Union
See Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies’ Garment Cutters’ Union, Local 10, 605 F.2d 1228, 1238 (2d Cir.1979) (power to discipline by suspension of right to attend membership meetings still requires finding, after a full and fair hearing, of a violation of a legitimate union rule), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sluys v. Hand
See generally Aldens, Inc. v. Miller, 610 F.2d 538, 539 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980); Aldens, Inc. v. Ryan, 571 F.2d 1159 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 439 U.S. 860 , 99 S.Ct. 180 , 58 L.Ed.2d 169 (1978); Aldens, Inc. v. LaFollette, 552 F.2d 745 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 434 U.S. 880 , 98 S.Ct. 236 , 54 L.Ed.2d 161 (1977); see also In re Estate of Clark, 21 N.Y.2d 478, 486, 288 N.Y.S.2d 993, 998 , 236 N.E.2d 152, 157 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see"
Morgan v. McNiff
See Aldens, Inc. v. Miller, 610 F.2d 538, 539 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1979); Aldens, Inc. v. Ryan, 571 F.2d 1159 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 439 U.S. 860 , 99 S.Ct. 180 , 58 L.Ed.2d 169 (1978); Aldens, Inc. v. LaFollette, 552 F.2d 745 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 434 U.S. 880 , 98 S.Ct. 236 , 54 L.Ed.2d 161 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Paccione
(2×)
See National City Trading Corp. v. United States, 635 F.2d 1020, 1026 (2d Cir.) (citing United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 309 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980)); United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1282-83 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 822 , 106 S.Ct. 75 , 88 L.Ed.2d 61 (1985); United States v. Offices Known As 50 State Distributing Co., 708 F.2d 1371, 1372-75 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1021 , 104 S.Ct. 1272 , 79 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Wellshire Securities, Inc.
(2×)
See United States v. Burke, 718 F. Supp 1130 , 1132 n. 2 (S.D.N.Y.) (citing United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299 , 302 n. 5 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980)). 3 .
cited
Cited "see"
Caputo v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers
See Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies Garment, Etc., 605 F.2d 1228 , 1245 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Collom v. Incorporated Village of Freeport, NY
See Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies’ Garment Cutters’ Union, 605 F.2d 1228 (2d Cir.1979) (recognizing civil liability of one who wrongly procures the arrest of another), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nancy C. Stillians v. State of Iowa
(2×)
See Aldens, Inc. v. Miller, 610 F.2d 538, 541 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange
See Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies’ Garment Cutters Union Local 10, 605 F.2d 1228, 1247 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 ; Farr v. Detroit Trust Co., 116 F.2d 807 (6th Cir.1941); Main v. Festa, 37 F.R.D. 227 (W.D.Pa.1965); 6 C.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. McMahon
(2×)
See United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 312-13 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Buczek v. First National Bank
See Federal Land Bank of Baltimore v. Fetner, 269 Pa.Super. 455, 461 , 410 A.2d 344, 348 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 918 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980); Grace v. Moll, 285 Pa. 353, 355 , 132 A. 171, 171-72 (1926).
cited
Cited "see"
Petramale v. Local No. 17 of Laborers' International Union
See Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies’ Garment Cutters’ Union, 605 F.2d 1228 , 1245 (2d Cir.1979), ce rt. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Bradford Trust Company of Boston v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc.
See Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies Garment Cutters’ Union, 605 F.2d 1228 , 1251 (2d Cir.1979), ce rt. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Voss v. Bergsgaard
(2×)
See United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299 (1st Cir.1980), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980); United States v. Offices Known as 50 State Distributing Company, 708 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 1272 , 79 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Voss v. Bergsgaard
(2×)
See United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299 (1st Cir.1980), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980); United States v. Offices Known as 50 State Distributing Company, 708 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1272 , 79 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bennerson
(2×)
See similarly, United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 310 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980) (commodities fraud may be prosecuted under mail and wire fraud statutes despite the existence of the more narrowly tailored Commodity Futures Trading Act: “Although the statutes prohibit similar conduct, they operate independently and harmoniously.
discussed
Cited "see"
Oliner v. McBride's Industries, Inc.
See Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies’ Garment Cutters’ Union, 605 F.2d 1228 , 1247 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980); 6 Wright & Miller, supra, § 1443 at 208.
discussed
Cited "see"
The State of New York v. Shore Realty Corp. And Donald Leogrande
The public nuisance claim for abatement and the CERCLA claims clearly “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” and the State “would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.” Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 725, 86 S.Ct. at 1138; accord Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies’ Garment Cutters’ Union, Local 10, 605 F.2d 1228, 1247 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
R.E. Chapa v. Local 18, Etc.
See Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies’ Garment Cutters’ Union, Local 10, I.L.G.W.U, 605 F.2d 1228 (2nd Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Petramale v. Local No. 17 of Laborers International Union
See Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies Garment Cutters Union, 605 F.2d 1228 , 1239 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Pasquale Petramale v. Local No. 17 Of Laborers International Union Of North America
See Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies Garment Cutters Union, 605 F.2d 1228 , 1239 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Karen Shapiro, United States of America v. Rebecca Howard
(2×)
See United States v. Basey, 613 F.2d 198, 202 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 274 (1980) (a conspirator is liable for acts of her co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy.) .
discussed
Cited "see"
James R. Myers v. Affiliated Property Craftsmen Local No. 44 Of The International Alliance Of Theatrical Stage Employees And Moving Picture Machine Operators Of The United States And Canada
See Rosario v. Ladies' Garment Cutters' Union, Local 10, 605 F.2d 1228 , 1243 (2nd Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980). 24 GORDON THOMPSON, Jr., District Judge, dissenting: 25 Myers was afforded a full and fair hearing.
discussed
Cited "see"
Myers v. Affiliated Property Craftsmen Local No. 44
See Rosario v. Ladies’ Garment Cutters’ Union, Local 10, 605 F.2d 1228 , 1243 (2nd Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980). . 29 U.S.C. § 411 (a)(5) (1976) states: Safeguards against improper disciplinary action No member of any labor organization may be fined, suspended, expelled, or otherwise disciplined except for nonpayment of dues by such organization or by any officer thereof unless such member has been (A) served with written specific charges; (B) given a reasonable time to prepare his defense; (C) afforded a full and fair hearing. .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dorfman
(2×)
See generally United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 313 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980): [I]t does not follow that the remedy for possible exposure to inherently prejudicial publicity should be the same for grand juries as for petit juries.
discussed
Cited "see"
National City Trading Corp. v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 309 (1st Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
National City Trading Corp. v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 309 (1st Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Stout
(2×)
See,, e. g., United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980) (violations of mail fraud statute and the Commodities Futures Trading Act, 7 U.S.C. § 60 ); United States v. Weatherspoon, 581 F.2d 595 (7th Cir. 1978) (violations of mail fraud statute and the false statements statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 ); United States v. Melvin, 544 F.2d 767 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 1184 , 51 L.Ed.2d 587 (1977) (violation of mail fraud statute and the Jenkins Act, 15 U.S.C. § 376 et seq., which requires the seller of ci…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. James A. Brien, United States of America v. Thomas Labus, United States of America v. Robert Ralph Zolla, United States of America v. Michael Shuster, United States of America v. Stephen Buzzi
See 100 S.Ct. 1854 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Boots
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 310 (1st Cir.) (holding that Commodities Futures Trading Act does not preempt or impliedly repeal wire or mail fraud statutes and citing related cases), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980); Brewer, 528 F.2d at 498 (“[Defendant’s] use of the mails to escape regulation added a different element and a new dimension to her failure to comply with the [Jenkins] Act.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Clark v. Esser
See, e.g., Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies Garment Cutters’ Union, Local 10, etc., 605 F.2d 1228, 1246 (2d Cir.1979) (“Although union action is a prerequisite to any liability under § 102 [ 29 U.S.C. § 412 ], since the purpose of the Act is to regulate the relationship between a labor organization and its members, a union official who aids [sic] abets, instigates, or directs a wrongful use of union power to deprive a member of his rights under § 101 [ 29 U.S.C. § 411 ] may be held liable under § 102 ... ”), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Tikkanen v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A.
See, e.g., Aldens, Inc. v. Miller, 610 F.2d 538 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , *280 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Center Art Galleries--Hawaii, Inc. William D. Mett v. United States
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 308 , 309 n. 11 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980) (affidavit showed that “entire operation was a scheme to defraud investors;” the “two hundred fifty complaints that surfaced could fairly be inferred to be only the tip of the iceberg”); National City Trading Corp. v. United States, 635 F.2d 1020, 1026 (2d Cir.1980) (affidavit demonstrated “probable cause to believe that NCTC’s business was permeated with fraud”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corporation
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Shareef, 714 F.2d 232, 233 (2d Cir.1983); see also United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 312 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980). 87 In contending that the trial court's conscious-avoidance charge prejudiced them with respect to the element of intent, defendants focus on two sentences in the instructions: 88 Thus, even if you find that the defendant you are considering did not have actual knowledge that the apple juice concentrate and apple juice were adulterated, you may still find that the knowledge, and intent and willf…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp.
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Shareef, 714 F.2d 232, 233 (2d Cir.1983); see also United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 312 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dirienzo v. United States
See, e.g., Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies’ Garment Cutters’ Union, 605 F.2d 1228 , 1248 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1853 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980); Boose v. City of Rochester, 71 A.D.2d 59 , 421 N.Y.S.2d 740, 746 (1979); cf. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Seyfarth
v.
Lovret
v.
Lovret
No. 79-1468.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 28, 1980.
Published
Citer courts: N.D. Georgia (2) · E.D. Wisconsin (2)
Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.