green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1995 ·
…will have the burden of proving that his own fourth amendment rights were violated.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
United States v. Gene A. Blanton
But see United States v. Kajevic, 711 F.2d 767, 770-71 (7th Cir.1983) (dicta), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 721 , 79 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Sherrett
(2×)
will have the burden of proving that his own fourth amendment rights were violated.
examined
Cited "see"
Whittlesey v. State
(4×)
See United States v. Steams, 707 F.2d 391 (9th Cir.1983), cert, denied, 464 U.S. 1047 , 104 S.Ct. 720 , 79 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984); State v. Escobar, 30 Wash.App. 131 , 633 P.2d 100 (1981). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Raymond Mango v. Harry K. Russell
See United States v. Thoma, 713 F.2d 604, 607 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1047 (1984). 8 The trial court apparently prevented Mango's attorney from asking leading questions on cross-examination, in contravention of traditional trial practice and Rule 611(c) of the Ohio Rules of Evidence.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Aguilar
See United States v. Stearns, 707 F.2d 391 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1047 , 104 S.Ct. 720 , 79 L.Ed.2d 181 (1984). 13 26 In the present case, however, we are compelled to conclude that the complexities of the claimed due diligence exception are not properly before us, and for that reason we must delay our construction of its scope and validity for a later occasion. 27 Whatever its legitimate application, the burden of proving the due diligence exception falls certainly upon the government.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Aguilar
See United States v. Stearns, 707 F.2d 391 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1047 , 104 S.Ct. 720 , 79 L.Ed.2d 181 (1984). 13 In the present case, however, we are compelled to conclude that the complexities of the claimed due diligence exception are not properly before us, and for that reason we must delay our construction of its scope and validity for a later occasion.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Wilfredo Cejas, Jr.
See United States v. Stearns, 707 F.2d 391, 394 (9th Cir.1983), aff'g 546 F.Supp. 805 (D.Hawaii 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1047 , 104 S.Ct. 720 , 79 L.Ed.2d 181 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ruth Studley
(2×)
See United States v. Lomas, 706 F.2d 886, 894 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1047 , 104 S.Ct. 720 , 79 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Duncan v. State
See Duncan v. State , 436 So.2d 883 , 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 720 , 79 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984), for the testimony of both Dobbins and Winkles in Duncan's trial for the capital murder of Ms. Sims.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Whitt v. State
(2×)
See also Duncan v. State, 436 So.2d 883 , 906 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983) (`even if the manner in which the trial court delivered its oral charge and the subsequent requested charge was error, which we do not hold that it was, appellant's objections[, which were raised in his motion for a new trial,] came too late') (emphasis omitted), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1047 , 79 L.Ed.2d 182 , 104 S.Ct. 720 (1984), overruled on other grounds, Jackson v. State, 516 So.2d 726 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). `Proper objections to the trial judge's failure or refusal to give the defendant's requested written instructions may not …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hunter v. State
(2×)
See also Duncan v. State, 436 So.2d 883, 906 (Ala.Cr.App.1983) (“even if the manner in which the trial court delivered its oral charge and the subsequent requested charge was error, which we do not hold that it was, appellant’s objections[, which were raised in his motion for a new trial,] came too late”) (emphasis omitted), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1047 , 104 S.Ct. 720 , 79 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984), overruled on other grounds, Jackson v. State, 516 So.2d 726 (Ala.Cr.App.1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vason v. State
(2×)
Compare Yelton v. State, 56 Ala. App. 272 , 321 So.2d 234 , cert. denied, 294 Ala. 745 , 321 So.2d 237 (1975), and Duncan v. State, 436 So.2d 883 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1047 , 104 S.Ct. 720 , 79 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984), with Jackson v. State, 516 So.2d 726 (Ala.Cr.App.1985) (overruling Duncan at 516 So.2d at 761-63), remanded on other grounds, 516 So.2d 768 (Ala.1987), and Beckley v. State, 357 So.2d 1022 (Ala.Cr.App.1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Levasseur
(2×)
The simple fact is that the dismissal of the previous indictment under these circumstances does not insulate the facts from further exploration and use.” United States v. Rivero, 532 F.2d 450, 457 (5th Cir.1976); see also United States v. Stearns, 707 F.2d 391, 394 (9th Cir.1983) (holding that the dismissal of defendants’ theft charge after the vacation of defendants’ theft conviction had no collateral es-toppel effect on the issue of whether a theft was committed in defendants’ felony murder trial), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1047 , 104 S.Ct. 720 , 79 L.Ed.2d 181 , 79 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Tillman
(2×)
See Fontana, 680 P.2d at 1046 (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-106 (1978)); see also Duncan v. State, 436 So.2d 883, 904-05 (Ala.Crim.App.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1047 , 104 S.Ct. 720 , 79 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Myers
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Kajevic, 711 F.2d 767, 769-71 (7th Cir. 1983), cert. denied 464 U.S. 1047 (1984); United States v. Pol lack, 655 F.2d 243, 245-46 (D.C.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Walker
v.
United States and Stearns v. United States
v.
United States and Stearns v. United States
No. 83-5511; No. 83-5565.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 9, 1984.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 707 F. 2d 391.