green
Positive treatment
7.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Albert C. Reeves Dolores Reeves, His Wife v. Mobile Dredging & Pumping Company, Inc., Albert C. Reeves and Dolores Reeves
(2×)
Id. at 245 (citations omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
Willis v. Fugro Chance, Inc.
See Bertrand v. International Mooring & Marine, Inc., 700 F.2d 240 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 974 , 79 L.Ed.2d 212 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Theo Ervin Williams v. Robert Borg, Warden
(2×)
Other courts have made the distinction “between cases in which the assertion of the privilege merely precludes inquiry into collateral matters which bear only on the credibility of the witness and those cases in which the assertion of the privilege prevents inquiry into matters about which the witness testified on direct examination.” United States v. Cardillo, 316 F.2d 606, 611 (2d Cir.) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 822 , 84 S.Ct. 60 , 11 L.Ed.2d 55 (1963); see United States v. Gullett, 713 F.2d 1203, 1209 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 973 , 79 L.Ed.2…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Johns
See United States v. Gullett, 713 F.2d 1203, 1210 (6th Cir.1983) (“The words ‘stolen, converted or taken by fraud’ have been construed to encompass virtually all ways by which an owner is wrongfully deprived of the use of his property.”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 973 , 79 L.Ed.2d 211 (1984). *222 Regardless of the extent of Johns’ knowledge concerning these checks, the government’s proof must fail as a matter of law because, as I explained in part II.
discussed
Cited "see"
American Hospital Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board
See Mills v. United States, 713 F.2d 1249, 1252 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 974 , 79 L.Ed.2d 212 (1984) (generally, the committee report is “the most persuasive indicia of Congressional intent (with the exception, of course, of the language of the statute itself)”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Orlando Zapata
See United States v. Gullett, 713 F.2d 1203, 1209 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 973 , 79 L.Ed.2d 211 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Theriot v. St. Martin, Lirette, Gaubert & Shea
See Bertrand v. Int'l Mooring & Marine, 700 F.2d 240, 244 (5th Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 464 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 974 , 79 L.Ed.2d 212 (1984); Holland v. Allied Structural Steel Co., 539 F.2d 476, 483 (5th Cir.1976), ce rt. denied, 429 U.S. 1105 , 97 S.Ct. 1136 , 51 L.Ed.2d 557 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Harvey Kelly Sims
See United States v. Haimowitz, 706 F.2d 1549 , 1556 n. 2 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 974 , 79 L.Ed.2d 212 (1984); United States v. Astroff, 578 F.2d 133 (5th Cir.1978) (in banc). 3 “To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger’s attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross examine.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 , 98 S.Ct. at 2684 .
cited
Cited "see"
Patton-Tully Transportation Company v. Ratliff
See Bertrand v. International Mooring and Marine, Inc., 700 F.2d 240, 244-245 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 974 , 79 L.Ed.2d 212 (1984); Barrett, 781 F.2d at 1074 .
cited
Cited "see"
Patton-Tully Transportation Co. v. Ratliff
See Bertrand v. International Mooring and Marine, Inc., 700 F.2d 240, 244-245 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 974 , 79 L.Ed.2d 212 (1984); Barrett, 781 F.2d at 1074 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Honey v. People
See United States v. Haimowitz, 706 F.2d 1549, 1560 (11th Cir.1983) (defendant’s credibility may be impeached by a witness who had known defendant for ten years and by a former law partner), cert, denied, 464 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 974 , 79 L.Ed.2d 212 (1984); Watson, 669 F.2d at 1382 n. 6 (trial court erred in denying defendant opportunity to impeach government witness with testimony of witness who had lived near government witness for six years and worked with him on two or three occasions for less than an hour on each occasion, a witness who had employed the government witness for three mo…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Marvin Arnesto Crews, Jr.
(2×)
See Mills v. United States, 713 F.2d 1249 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 974 , 79 L.Ed.2d 212 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ospina
Accord, United States v. Haimowitz, 706 F.2d 1549 (11th Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 464 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 974 , 79 L.Ed.2d 212 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gordon Pennell
(2×)
See United States v. Gullett, 713 F.2d 1203, 1209 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 973 , 79 L.Ed.2d 211 (1984); Lenz, 616 F.2d at 962 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Layne B. Foulk Marjorie E. Foulk, H/w v. Donjon Marine Company, Inc., Defendant/third-Party v. Breakwaters International, Inc., Third-Party Donjon Marine Company, Inc., in 97-5235. Layne B. Foulk Marjorie E. Foulk, in 97-5269
See, e.g., Bertrand v. International Mooring & Marine, Inc., 700 F.2d 240 (5th Cir.1983) cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 974 , 79 L.Ed.2d 212 (1984).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Foulk v. Donjon Marine Co Inc
See, e.g., Bertrand v. International Mooring & Marine, Inc., 700 F.2d 240 (5th Cir.1983) cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 974 , 79 L.Ed.2d 212 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Anthony Medina (91-1852) Nathaniel Wilson (91-1869) Neville King (91-1891/1892)
(2×)
See Pennell, 737 F.2d at 526 (reserving the question whether prosecutorial misconduct in making immunity decisions can constitute a due process violation); Lenz, 616 F.2d at 963-64 ; see also United States v. Gullett, 713 F.2d 1203, 1210 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 973 , 79 L.Ed.2d 211 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Debbe Marquardt
Courts have found that when an indictment is multiplicitous, “[I]t may prejudice the jury against the defendant by creating the impression of more criminal activity on his part than in fact may have been present.” United States v. Carter, 576 F.2d 1061, 1064 (3rd Cir.1978); see also United States v. Gullett, 713 F.2d 1203, 1211-12 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 973 , 79 L.Ed.2d 211 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert Bernard v. Binnings Construction Co., Inc.
See also Owens v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 487 F.2d 74, 76 (5th Cir.1973). 12 Where the facts upon which summary judgment on seaman status is based are, as here, undisputed, our job is to “review them to determine whether reasonable persons might draw conflicting inferences.” Bertrand v. International Mooring & Marine, Inc., 700 F.2d 240, 244 (5th Cir.1983), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 974 , 79 L.Ed.2d 212 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Clyde Buras v. Commercial Testing & Engineering Company
It is likewise well settled that while summary judgment in Jones Act cases is rarely appropriate and that even marginal cases ordinarily should go to the jury, see, e.g., Bouvier v. Krenz, 702 F.2d 89, 90 (5th Cir.1983), “it is in some circumstances proper to rule as a matter of law that a worker is not a seaman.” Id.; see also Bertrand v. International Mooring & Marine, Inc., 700 F.2d 240, 244 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 974 , 79 L.Ed.2d 212 (1984); Barrios v. Engine Gas & Compressor Services, Inc., 669 F.2d 350, 352 (5th Cir.1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Stahl
v.
Oklahoma
v.
Oklahoma
No. 83-475.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 16, 1984.
Published
Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.