green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
9.8 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1985 ·
…the prison investigator's incident report specifically recites that the source of the confidential information was 'considered to be reliable.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English
But cf. Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 111 F.2d 36, 42 (2d Cir.1983) (asserting that "English is the national language of the United States”), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); DaLomba v. Director, 369 Mass. 92 , 337 N.E.2d 687, 689 (1975) (stating that "English is the official language of this country”). .Besides Arizona, the states that have adopted such provisions are: Alabama, Ala. Const, amend. 509; Arkansas, Ark.Code Ann. § 1-4-117; California, Cal. Const, art.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez Jaime P. Gutierrez, and Arizonans Against Constitutional Tampering, Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees, and State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin v. Arizonans for Official English Robert D. Parks, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez v. State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin, and Arizonans for Official English Robert D. Parks, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez v. State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin
But cf. Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 42 (2d Cir.1983) (asserting that "English is the national language of the United States"), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); DaLomba v. Director, 369 Mass. 92 , 337 N.E.2d 687, 689 (1975) (stating that "English is the official language of this country") 11 Besides Arizona, the states that have adopted such provisions are: Alabama, Ala. Const. amend. 509; Arkansas, Ark.Code Ann.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez Jaime P. Gutierrez, and Arizonans Against Constitutional Tampering, Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees, and State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin v. Arizonans for Official English Robert D. Parks, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez v. State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin, and Arizonans for Official English Robert D. Parks, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez v. State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin
But cf. Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 42 (2d Cir.1983) (asserting that "English is the national language of the United States"), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); DaLomba v. Director, 369 Mass. 92 , 337 N.E.2d 687, 689 (1975) (stating that "English is the official language of this country") 10 Besides Arizona, the states that have adopted such provisions are: Alabama, Ala. Const. amend. 509; Arkansas, Ark.Code Ann.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English
But cf. Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 42 (2d Cir.1983) (asserting that "English is the national language of the United States”), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); DaLomba v. Director, 369 Mass. 92 , 337 N.E.2d 687, 689 (1975) (stating that "English is the official language of this country”). .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
PERALTA EX REL. PERALTA v. Barnhart
placing the burden of diligence and further inquiry on the part of a non-english-speaking individual served in this country with a notice in english does not violate any principle of due process
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hun Jong Kim v. United States
a rule placing the burden of diligence and further inquiry on the part of non-english-speaking individual served in this country with a notice in english does not violate any principle of due process.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Charles Mendoza v. Harold G. Miller, Warden
(8×)
also: Cited "see"
the prison investigator's incident report specifically recites that the source of the confidential information was 'considered to be reliable.
discussed
Cited "see"
Jana-Rock Construction, Inc. v. New York State Department of Economic Development
See So beral-Perez v. Heckler, 111 F.2d 36, 41 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984) (finding that Hispanics constitute a suspect class); 15 U.S.C. § 637 (d)(3)(C), Pub.L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Jana-Rock Construction, Inc. v. New York State Department Of Economic Development
See Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 41 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984) (finding that Hispanics constitute a suspect class); 15 U.S.C. § 637 (d)(3)(C), Pub.L.
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Villa-Villa
See Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984)(rule placing burden of diligence and further inquiry on non-English speaking individual served with a notice in English does not violate due process); Commonwealth v. Olivo, 369 Mass. 62 , 337 N.E.2d 904 (Mass.1975)(English-only notices of condemnation did not violate due process or equal protection and defendants were on inquiry notice to find out their meaning).
discussed
Cited "see"
Century ML-Cable Corp. v. CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP COMPOSED BY EDWIN CARRILLO
See Toure v. United States, 24 F.3d 444, 445-46 (2d Cir.1994) (English language notice satisfies due process even when recipient does not understand English and is incarcerated and therefore unable to obtain a translation easily), citing Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 111 F.2d 36, 43-44 (2d Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984) (providing notice in English to Spanish-speaking claimants of social security benefits not violative of due process); Hong v. United States, 920 F.Supp. 311, 315-16 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (Notice of forfeiture in English was not constitution…
discussed
Cited "see"
Alston v. Howard
See Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 41 (2d Cir.1983) (“[w]here a suspect class or a fundamental right is not implicated, the challenged action need only be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose”), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); see also Rivera v. Senkowski, 62 F.3d 80, 84 (2d Cir.1995) (denying equal protection claim against defendants who had no authority to remedy alleged violation).
discussed
Cited "see"
Benny v. O'Brien
(2×)
See Dawson v. Smith, 719 F.2d 896 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1714 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Freitas v. Auger
See Dawson v. Smith, 719 F.2d 896 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1714 , 8 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Freitas v. Auger
See Dawson v. Smith, 719 F.2d 896 (7th Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1714 , 8 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Jimmy Ruben Soto
(4×)
See United States v. Cox, 719 F.2d 285, 288 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1714 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984). 20 B.
discussed
Cited "see"
Jose J. Olagues, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Joseph P. Russoniello, Individually and in His Capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, Jose J. Olagues, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated Hispanic Coalition for Human Rights, Chinese for Affirmative Action, and San Francisco Lation Voter Registration Education Project v. Joseph P. Russoniello, Individually and in His Capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern Ca O'malley, William A., Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney for Contra Costa County Underwood, Lon, Individually and in His Capacity as Registrar of Voters for Contra Costa County Smith, Arlo, Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney for San Francisco County
See Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 41 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); Frontera v. Sindell, 522 F.2d 1215, 1219-20 (6th Cir.1975); see also Garcia v. Gloor, 618 F.2d 264, 268 (5th Cir.1980) ("Neither [Title VII] nor common understanding equates national origin with the language one chooses to speak."), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1113 , 101 S.Ct. 923 , 66 L.Ed.2d 842 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
David v. Heckler
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Soberal-Perez v. Schweiker, 549 F.Supp. 1164, 1169-70 (E.D.N.Y.1982), aff'd, 717 F.2d 36 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hayden v. Paterson
Law § 5-106 , Historical and Statutory Notes; supra Background, Part II. 14 In some cases, “notwithstanding [discriminatory] impact[,] the legitimate noninvidious purposes of a law cannot be missed.” Feeney, 442 U.S. at 275 , 99 S.Ct. 2282 (explaining that the distinction made by the Massachusetts veterans preference law “is, as it seems to be, quite simply between veterans and nonveterans, not between men and women”); see also Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 42 (2d Cir.1983) (affirming dismissal of equal protection challenge to Secretary of Health and Human Services’ failure…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Samedi v. Miami-Dade County
To the contrary, “the courts have recognized, whether explicitly or implicitly, that in an English-speaking country, requirements of ‘reasonable notice’ are satisfied when the notice is given in English.” Vialez v. New York City Housing Authority, 783 F.Supp. 109, 120 (S.D.N.Y.1991), quoting Alfonso v. Board of Review, 89 N.J. 41 , 444 A.2d 1075, 1077 (1982), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 459 U.S. 806 , 103 S.Ct. 30 , 74 L.Ed.2d 45 (1982); see also Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 43 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); Jordan v…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Haywood Champion v. Christopher Artuz, Superintendent Sgt. v. Guarracino
See, e.g., Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 41 (2d Cir.1983) (‘Where a suspect class or a fundamental right is not implicated, the challenged action need only be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.”), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); see generally Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 230 , 101 S.Ct. 1074, 1080 , 67 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981); Thomas v. Sullivan, 922 F.2d 132, 136 (2d Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Albert E. Taylor v. James Wallace, David Miller, Dolores Ramsey
(2×)
See also Dawson v. Smith, 719 F.2d 896, 899 (7th Cir.1983) (no due process violation found because court determined committee adopted credibility determination made by investigator after in camera review revealed “more than sufficient additional information to bolster the reliability of the information”), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1714 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
D.C. And M.S. v. The City of St. Louis, Missouri Homer E. Sayad Charles W. Valier Thomas Purcell Robert F. Wintersmith Vincent C. Schoemehl, Jr. Jerome Williams John J. Frank James Mosbacher Robert J. Baer Jordan Lewis Ronald Klier Roy Joachimstaler Antoinette Filla Fred Husman Michael Vierling, Individually and in Their Official Capacities
(2×)
See also United States v. Cox, 719 F.2d 285, 287 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1714 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984). 16 Appellants cite State v. Kueny, 215 N.W.2d 215, 218 (Iowa 1974), for the proposition that the common usage of the terms "indecent" and "lewd" "has eroded the effective employment of such terms in any statutory enactment, absent an attendant specific definition thereof, as descriptions of proscribed ultimate criminal conduct." We find this observation to be persuasive. 17 The ordinance itself containing no definition of the words "indecent or lewd act of behav…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
D.C. & M.S. v. City of St. Louis
(2×)
See also United States v. Cox, 719 F.2d 285, 287 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1714 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Richard A. Scarborough
(4×)
See e.g., United States v. Cox, 719 F.2d 285, 288 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied 464 U.S. 1001 , 104 S.Ct. 1714 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984) (prior crimes included kidnapping, assault and robbery); United States v. Davis, 710 F.2d 104, 109 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied 464 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 505 , 78 L.Ed.2d 695 (1983) (history of 28 arrests and 11 convictions including "atrocious assault and battery" and murder); United States v. Jarrett, 705 F.2d 198, 209 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1004 , 104 S.Ct. 995 , 79 L.Ed.2d 228 (1984) (defendant a "professional criminal all of his adult life" with …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Etlin
v.
Horan, Commonwealth's Attorney
v.
Horan, Commonwealth's Attorney
No. 83-5913.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 2, 1984.
Published
Citer courts: Seventh Circuit (2) · E.D. New York (2)
Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.