green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 6×
11.9 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 1992 ·
…where an assessment is based on more than one item, the presumption of correctness attaches to each item. proof that an item is in error destroys the presumption for that single item; the remaining items retain their presumption of correctness.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Gran
where an assessment is based on more than one item, the presumption of correctness attaches to each item. proof that an item is in error destroys the presumption for that single item; the remaining items retain their presumption of correctness.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gran v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Gran)
where an assessment is based on more than one item, the presumption of correctness attaches to each item. proof that an item is in error destroys the presumption for that single item; the remaining items retain their presumption of correctness.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gran v. Internal Revenue Service
where an assessment is based on more than one item, the presumption of correctness attaches to each item. proof that an item is in error destroys the presumption for that single item; the remaining items retain their presumption of correctness.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings
t is well settled law ... that evidence may be used even if obtained in violation of the exclusionary rule
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mccarthy v. Mayo
dismissal of an indictment is therefore warranted on constitutional grounds if prosecutorial misconduct has undermined the grand jury's ability to make an informed and objective evaluation of the evidence presented to it.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
McCarthy v. Mayo
dismissal of an indictment is therefore warranted on constitutional grounds if prosecutorial misconduct has undermined the grand jury's ability to make an informed and objective evaluation of the evidence presented to it.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Darrel Simpson Robert Anderson James Freeman
(2×)
See United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 719 F.2d 1386, 1391 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1079 , 104 S.Ct. 1441 , 79 L.Ed.2d 762 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. William A. Kilpatrick, Declan J. O'donnell, Sheila C. Lerner, the Bank of Nova Scotia, Michael Alberga, C.S. Gill, and C.M. Smith
See United States v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 719 F.2d 1386 , 1391 n. 7 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1079 , 104 S.Ct. 1441 , 79 L.Ed.2d 762 (1984) 7 The first consideration is necessitated by the Supreme Court's opinions in Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 , 106 S.Ct. 938 , 89 L.Ed.2d 50 (1986) and United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 , 103 S.Ct. 1974 , 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Darrel Paterson Simpson, Robert MacRiner Anderson, and James Roy Freeman
See United States v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 719 F.2d 1386 , 1395 n. 2 (9th Cir.1983) (Norris, J., dissenting in part), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1079 , 104 S.Ct. 1441 , 79 L.Ed.2d 762 (1984); cf. In re Kiefaber, 774 F.2d 969, 974 (9th Cir.1985) (exercise of supervisory power to quash grand jury subpoena reviewed for abuse of discretion).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Sammy Herrera Venegas and Eddie Adrian Vindiola
See United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 719 F.2d 1386, 1393 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1079 , 104 S.Ct. 1441 , 79 L.Ed.2d 762 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Anastasato v. Commissioner
See United States v. Stonehill, 702 F.2d 1288, 1293 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1079 , 104 S.Ct. 1440 , 79 L.Ed.2d 761 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Pano Anastasato v. Commissioner Of Internal Revenue
See United States v. Stonehill, 702 F.2d 1288, 1293 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1079 , 104 S.Ct. 1440 , 79 L.Ed.2d 761 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, Inc.
See United States v. Sears, 719 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.1983) (in a previous appeal, this court noted that a possible motive for Sears’ alleged false statements was “to avoid dumping duties____”), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1079 , 104 S.Ct. 1441 , 79 L.Ed.2d 762 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Roy Griffith (82-1485), Gerald L. McKay (82-1495), Frank Ross Reynolds, III (82-1496)
See United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 719 F.2d 1386, 1394 (9th Cir.1983) (Norris, J., dissenting in part), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1441 , 79 L.Ed.2d 762 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Frank Zielezinski
See United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 719 F.2d 1386, 1391-92 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 1441 , 79 L.Ed.2d 762 (1984); United States v. Al Mudarris, 695 F.2d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 932 , 103 S.Ct. 2097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 305 (1983); United States v. Kennedy, 564 F.2d 1329, 1338 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 944 , 98 S.Ct. 1526 , 55 L.Ed.2d 541 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rafael Guzman-Solis
Danielson, 325 F.3d at 1069 (clarifying there is no Sixth Amendment violation unless there is “substantial prejudice”); see also United States v. Rogers, 751 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 719 F.2d 1386, 1391-92 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1079 , 104 S.Ct. 1441 , 79 L.Ed.2d 762 (1984); United States v. Owen, 580 F.2d 365, 367 (9th Cir. 1978)) (stating “an indictment may not be dismissed for governmental misconduct absent prejudice to the defendant”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Joseph Isgro Raymond Anderson Jeffrey S. Monka
See also United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 719 F.2d 1386, 1394 (9th Cir.1983) (“[W]e disagree with [the district court] that the grand jury could not have returned an informed indictment because the prosecutor failed to introduce ... allegedly exculpatory evidence.”), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1079 , 104 S.Ct. 1441 , 79 L.Ed.2d 762 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Eugene Leslie
(2×)
These goals are separate from the goal of protecting a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.” Note, The Exercise of Supervisory Powers to Dismiss a Grand Jury Indictment — A Basis for Curbing Prosecutorial Misconduct, 45 Ohio St.L.J. 1077, 1084 (1984); see also United States v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 719 F.2d 1386, 1394 (9th Cir.1983) (Norris, J. dissenting in part), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1079 , 104 S.Ct. 1441 , 79 L.Ed.2d 762 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Earullo
v.
Illinois
v.
Illinois
No. 83-1022.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 5, 1984.
Published
App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.