green
Positive treatment
9.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 40 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Nissho-Iwai Co., Ltd. v. M/T Stolt Lion
(2×)
But see Maxwell v. Sumner, 673 F.2d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982); United States v. Texas Education Agency, 647 F.2d 504, 506-07 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1143 , 102 S.Ct. 1002 , 71 L.Ed.2d 295 (1982); Constructora Maza, Inc. v. Banco de Ponce, 616 F.2d 573, 576 (1st Cir.1980); In re Sierra Trading Corp., 482 F.2d 333, 337 (10th Cir.1973); Case v. Morrisette, 475 F.2d 1300, 1306-07 (D.C.Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Nissho-Iwai Co. v. M/T Stolt Lion
(2×)
But see Maxwell v. Sumner, 673 F.2d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982); United States v. Texas Education Agency, 647 F.2d 504, 506-07 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1143 , 102 S.Ct. 1002 , 71 L.Ed.2d 295 (1982); Constructora Maza, Inc. v. Banco de Ponce, 616 F.2d 573, 576 (1st Cir.1980); In re Sierra Trading Corp., 482 F.2d 333, 337 (10th Cir.1973); Case v. Morrisette, 475 F.2d 1300, 1306-07 (D.C.Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Rose Hall Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Overseas Banking Corp.
(2×)
But see Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 660 F.2d 854, 865-66 (2d Cir.1981) (federal court sitting in diversity will follow New York minority breach date rule for conversion of currency), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Buckley v. Paperboy Ventures, LLC
(2×)
See Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 660 F.2d *12 854, 865 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Buckley v. Paperboy Ventures, LLC
(2×)
See Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 660 F.2d 854, 865 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982); Ventas, Inc. v. HCP, Inc., 647 F.3d 291, 322 (6th Cir.2011); Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 823 cmt. a (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Joseph Kelly
See United States v. Crachy, 800 F.2d 83, 87 (6th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1042 , 107 S.Ct. 905 , 93 L.Ed.2d 856 (1987), and United States v. Hamilton, 684 F.2d 380, 384 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 312 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Nevada v. Hicks
See 459 U.S. 977, 978-79 , 103 S.Ct. 314 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982) (Rehnquist, C.J. and White, J., dissenting from denial of certiora-ri). .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Morris
See State v. Caminita, 411 So.2d 13, 17 (La.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 314 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7448, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,269 Jose Jesus Ceja v. Terry Stewart, Director of Arizona Department of Corrections Donald Wawrzaszek, Superintendent of Arizona State Prison
(2×)
See Maxwell v. Sumner, 673 F.2d 1031, 1034-35 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ceja v. Stewart
(2×)
See Maxwell v. Sumner, 673 F.2d 1031, 1034-35 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982).
examined
Cited "see"
Donald Ray Wells v. Manfred Maass, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary
(4×)
See Maxwell v. Sumner, 673 F.2d 1031, 1033-34 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982); see also Brownstein v. Director, Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 760 F.2d 836 , 841 n. 2 (7th Cir.) (" '[P]rocedural default' requires the by-pass of a procedural requirement, and not merely the by-pass of a procedural opportunity.") (citing Maxwell with approval), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 858 , 106 S.Ct. 166 , 88 L.Ed.2d 138 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith v. Dixon
(2×)
See Silverstein v. Henderson, 706 F.2d 361, 368 (2d Cir.) (State court's denial of collateral relief under § 440.-10(2)(a) following state appellate court’s rejection of defendant’s federal claim on the merits "does not constitute a finding of procedural default that would bar federal consideration of Sil-verstein’s claims.”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 864 , 104 S.Ct. 195 , 78 L.Ed.2d 171 (1983); accord Maxwell v. Sumner, 673 F.2d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir.) (applying California law), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Kermit Smith, Jr. v. Gary Dixon, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Kermit Smith, Jr. v. Gary Dixon, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina
(2×)
See Silverstein v. Henderson, 706 F.2d 361, 368 (2d Cir.) (State court's denial of collateral relief under § 440.10(2)(a) following state appellate court's rejection of defendant's federal claim on the merits "does not constitute a finding of procedural default that would bar federal consideration of Silverstein's claims."), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 864 , 104 S.Ct. 195 , 78 L.Ed.2d 171 (1983); accord Maxwell v. Sumner, 673 F.2d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir.) (applying California law), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982). 11 The State also concedes that Maynard applies retr…
cited
Cited "see"
Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Town of Parker
See Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. Namen, 665 F.2d 951 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 459 U.S. 977 , 103 S.Ct. 314 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982) 4 ; United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Willie Joseph Causey, Jr.
(2×)
See United, States v. Hamilton, 684 F.2d 380, 383 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 312 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Competex, S.A. v. Labow
(2×)
See Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 660 F.2d 854 , 865 & n. 7 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982); cf. Erie R.
discussed
Cited "see"
Tat Ba v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
(2×)
See Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 660 F.2d 854 , 864-65 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982); Ngoc Dung Thi Tran v. Citibank, 586 F.Supp. 203, 205 (S.D.N.Y.1983); Sokoloff, 250 N.Y. at 80 , 164 N.E. at 749 . 9 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Frank W. Smith v. E.P. Perini
(2×)
See U.S. v. Hamilton, 684 F.2d 380 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 312 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982); Summit v. Bordenkircher, 608 F.2d 247 (6th Cir.1979); U.S. v. Russell, 532 F.2d 1063 (6th Cir.1976). 22 In U.S. v. Russell, supra, the appellant was convicted of bank robbery.
discussed
Cited "see"
Black Sea & Baltic General Insurance v. S.S. Hellenic Destiny
(2×)
See Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 660 F.2d 854 , 865 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied,-U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982). 37 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Puyallup Indian Tribe v. Port of Tacoma
(2×)
See Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. Namen, 665 F.2d 951, 961-62 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 314 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Green
See State v. Caminita, 411 So.2d 13 (La.1982), U.S. cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 314 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gary F. Epley, Ronald J. Pike, and James Goodman
See, e.g., United States v. Hamilton, 684 F.2d 380, 384 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 312 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Charles Edward Moore, Jr., Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Arthur Calderon, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee
(2×)
See, e.g., Maxwell v. Sumner, 673 F.2d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982); Fritz v. Spalding, 682 F.2d 782, 784-85 (9th Cir.1982); Savage v. Estelle, 924 F.2d 1459 , 1463 n. 7 (9th Cir.1990), ce rt. denied, 501 U.S. 1255 , 111 S.Ct. 2900 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1064 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Caldwell
(2×)
See United States v. Barnes, 681 F.2d 717, 724 (11th Cir.), reh’g denied, 694 F.2d 233 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1046 , 103 S.Ct. 1447 , 75 L.Ed.2d 802 (1983) (drug trafficking crime “is ‘committed’ for venue purposes both in the district where the call was made and in the district where the call was received.”); see also United States v. Lewis, 676 F.2d 508, 511 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Dorwin Aam
Compare Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Montana v. Namen, 665 F.2d 951, 962 (9th Cir.) (tribe's heavy dependence on fishing could be "public exigency" that required a departure from the federal policy of reserving ownership of land under navigable waters for future states), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 977 , 103 S.Ct. 314 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982) with United States v. Aranson, 696 F.2d 654, 666 (9th Cir.) (Indians were not so dependent on the river that Congress would have intended to depart from the equal footing doctrine and convey the riverbed), cert. denied, 4…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Aam
Compare Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Montana v. Namen, 665 F.2d 951, 962 (9th Cir.) (tribe’s heavy dependence on fishing could be “public exigency” that required a departure from the federal policy of reserving ownership of land under navigable waters for future states), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 977 , 103 S.Ct. 314 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982) with United States v. Aranson, 696 F.2d 654, 666 (9th Cir.) (Indians were not so dependent on the river that Congress would have intended to depart from the equal footing doctrine and convey the riverbed), cert. den…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Indag, S.A. v. Irridelco Corp.
(2×)
This is a “substantive question” on which the Court is “compelled to apply New York law.” Competex, S.A. v. Labow, 783 F.2d 333, 334 (2d Cir.1986); see also Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 660 F.2d 854, 865-67 (2d Cir.1981), ce rt. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Charles Townsend
See also United States v. Hamilton, 684 F.2d 380, 384 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 312 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Samuel John Passarella
See, e.g., United States v. Hamilton, 684 F.2d 380, 384 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 312 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982); McFayden-Snider, 552 F.2d at 1183 ; Largent, 545 F.2d at 1043 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Frank L. Hook
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Hamilton, 684 F.2d 380, 385 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 312 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982); United States v. Parisien, 574 F.2d 974, 976 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 850 , 99 S.Ct. 154 , 58 L.Ed.2d 154 (1978).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Jerome M. Armant v. Joe Marquez
(4×)
See also Maxwell v. Sumner, 673 F.2d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mohammed Ismail
See, e.g., United States v. Hamilton, 684 F.2d 380, 384 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 312 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982); McFadyen-Snider, 552 F.2d at 1183 ; Largent, 545 F.2d at 1043 . 7 Ismail contends that the testimony about hashish and cocaine was not admitted for a proper purpose, that the other acts were not similar to or near in time to the offenses charged in the indictment and that the evidence was far more prejudicial than probative.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Dothan Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., a Corporation, Montgomery Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., a Corporation v. United States
(4×)
Compare, Maxwell v. Sumner, 673 F.2d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982) and Constructora Maza, Inc. v. Banco de Ponce, 616 F.2d 573, 576 (1st Cir.1980) ("clearly erroneous" rule applies even when findings are based solely on documentary evidence or on inferences from undisputed facts) with Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607, 614 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 800 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 145 (1982) and Lydle v. United States, 635 F.2d 763 , 765 n. 1 (6th Cir.1981) (holding the "clearly er…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ivan W. Brown and Gordon M. Kenngott
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Lewis, 676 F.2d 508, 511 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982) (phone call from defendant in Florida to Texas sufficient to establish venue in Texas); United States v. Cordero, 668 F.2d 32, 43-44 (1st Cir. 1981) (as amended); United States v. Schmucker-Bula, 609 F.2d 399, 402 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Spiro, 385 F.2d 210, 212 (7th Cir.1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Garcia v. Chase Manhattan Bank
(2×)
See also Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 660 F.2d 854, 862 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982); United Bank Ltd. v. Cosmic International, Inc., 542 F.2d 868, 873 (2d Cir.1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Garcia v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
(2×)
See also Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 660 F.2d 854, 862 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982); United Bank Ltd. v. Cosmic International, Inc., 542 F.2d 868, 873 (2d Cir.1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Johnson v. State
See also United States v. Hamilton , 684 F.2d 380 , 383 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 312 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982) ("Muszynski's inability to pick Hamilton out of the photo array did not render his in-court identification invalid.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Charles Kreck v. James Spalding
(4×)
Accordingly, "... if neither the state legislature nor the state courts indicate that a federal constitutional claim is barred by some state procedural rule, a federal court implies no disrespect for the State by entertaining the claim." Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 154 , 99 S.Ct. 2213, 2223 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979); see also Maxwell v. Sumner, 673 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe
Id. at 366 (footnote omitted); see also Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. Namen, 665 F.2d 951, 962-64 (9th Cir.) (water pollution regulations “falls squarely within the exception recognized in Montana’’), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 314 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Babbitt Ford, Inc., an Arizona Corporation v. The Navajo Indian Tribe, Through Its Chairman, Peterson Zah, and Tom and Lorraine Sellers, Defendants-Cross-Appellants. Gurley Motor Company, a New Mexico Corporation v. Peterson Zah, Individually and in His Capacity as Chairman of the Navajo Tribal Council
We reasoned that: 54 [t]o hold that Indian tribes cannot exercise civil jurisdiction over non-Indians would, when combined with Oliphant, eliminate altogether any tribal jurisdiction over persons not members of the tribe, and thus, reduce to a nullity the Supreme Court's repeated assertions that Indian tribes retain attributes of sovereignty over their territory, not just their members. 55 Id. at 366 (footnote omitted); see also Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. Namen, 665 F.2d 951, 962-64 (9th Cir.) (water pollution regulations "falls squarely within the exception recognized in Montana…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Polansky
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 82-5485.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 1, 1982.
Published
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.