green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.6 score
“only when there is a situation presenting a 891 probability of vindictiveness does this due process interest come into play.”
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Forman
only when there is a situation presenting a 891 probability of vindictiveness does this due process interest come into play.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gibson v. Phillips
(2×)
See Grochulski v. Henderson, 637 F.2d 50, 55-56 (2d Cir.1980), ce rt. denied 450 U.S. 927 , 101 S.Ct. 1383 , 67 L.Ed.2d 358 (1981) (distinguishing Chambers as “confined to its facts” and involving the overly “technical” suppression of a third party confession that had not been recanted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gardner v. State
See United States v. Andrews, 633 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 927 , 101 S.Ct. 1382 , 67 L.Ed.2d 358 (1981). *598 The problem in this case is that the facts do not warrant a rebuttal of the presumption under the law set out by the majority.
discussed
Cited "see"
Soto v. Lefevre
(2×)
See Grochulski v. Henderson, 637 F.2d 50, 53-54 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied 450 U.S. 927 , 101 S.Ct. 1383 , 67 L.Ed.2d 358 .
discussed
Cited "see"
White v. Jones
(2×)
See Grochulski v. Henderson, 637 F.2d 50, 52-53 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 927 , 101 S.Ct. 1383 , 67 L.Ed.2d 358 (1981); see also Turkish, supra, 623 F.2d at 778 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Herman v. Krezdorn
(2×)
See U.S. v. Andrews, 633 F.2d 449 (6th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 927 , 101 S.Ct. 1382 , 67 L.Ed.2d 358 (1981). 22 In U.S. v. Goodwin, the Supreme Court addressed itself to the issue of when, during criminal proceedings, a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness would attach.
cited
Cited "see"
Kenneth Grochulski v. Robert J. Henderson, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility
See 101 S.Ct. 1383 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Smith
See also United States v. Andrews, 612 F.2d 235 (6th Cir.1979), reh’g, 633 F.2d 449 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 927 , 101 S.Ct. 1382 , 67 L.Ed.2d 358 (1981); Miracle v. Estelle, 592 F.2d 1269 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Vaughan, 565 F.2d 283 (4th Cir.1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Joseph E. Todaro
(2×)
See also Grochulski v. Henderson, 637 F.2d 50, 52-53 (2d Cir.1980) (similar claim raised in federal habeas attack upon state criminal conviction), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 927 , 101 S.Ct. 1383 , 67 L.Ed.2d 358 (1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Edwards
v.
Jago
v.
Jago
No. 80-5842.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 23, 1981.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. Michigan (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.