green
Positive treatment
10.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 43 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Smith ex rel. Smith v. Nixon
But cf. Zweibon v. Mitchell (“Zwei bon IV”), 720 F.2d 162, 171 (D.C.Cir.1983) (dictum) (court is “reticent” to permit plaintiffs “to benefit from the fruits of discovery that took place before Harlow was decided”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Smith v. Nixon
But cf. Zweibon v. Mitchell ("Zweibon IV "), 720 F.2d 162, 171 (D.C.Cir.1983) (dictum) (court is "reticent" to permit plaintiffs "to benefit from the fruits of discovery that took place before Harlow was decided"), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Reginald D. McGlory Melvin Hauser, Norman Gomez, A/K/A Chubbs, Roland Slade, Norma Jean Pruitt, Vira Kulkivit, A/K/A Wee, Yongyos Thauthong, Willie J. Purdom and Charles Cotton. Vira Kulkovit, United States of America v. Reginald D. McGlory Melvin Hauser, Norman Gomez, A/K/A Chubbs, Roland Slade, Norma Jean Pruitt, Vira Kulkivit, A/K/A Wee, Yongyos Thauthong, Willie J. Purdom and Charles Cotton. Melvin Hauser, United States of America v. Reginald D. McGlory Melvin Hauser, Norman Gomez, A/K/A Chubbs, Roland Slade, Norma Jean Pruitt, Vira Kulkivit, A/K/A Wee, Yongyos Thauthong, Willie J. Purdom and Charles Cotton. Reginald D. McGlory United States of America v. Reginald D. McGlory Melvin Hauser, Norman Gomez, A/K/A Chubbs, Roland Slade, Norma Jean Pruitt, Vira Kulkivit, A/K/A Wee, Yongyos Thauthong, Willie J. Purdom and Charles Cotton. Charles Cotton
Id. at 219. 146 Here, when all the evidence is considered, it can reasonably be inferred that the notes were made during the course of the conspiracy.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mario Eufrasio, A/K/A Murph, United States of America v. Santo Idone, A/K/A Sam, A/K/A Sam From Chester, A/K/A Papa, A/K/A Big Santo, United States of America v. Gary S. Iacona
United States v. Jannotti, 729 F.2d 213, 226 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 244, 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984) ("In order to establish a conspiracy to violate section 1962(c), 'the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that ... the individuals knowingly agreed to participate in the "enterprise" through a pattern of racketeering.' " Id. at 226, quoting Riccobene, 709 F.2d at 220-21 .) This association requirement insures "that the government show, at a minimum, that the defendant was aware of the existence of a group of persons, organized into a structure of some sort…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Eufrasio
United States v. Jannotti, 729 F.2d 213, 226 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 244, 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984) ("In order to establish a conspiracy to violate section 1962(c), ‘the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that ... the individuals knowingly agreed to participate in the "enterprise" through a pattern of racketeering.'" Id. at 226, quoting Riccobene, 709 F.2d at 220-21 .) This association requirement insures “that the government show, at a minimum, that the defendant was aware of the existence of a group of persons, organized into a structure of some s…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Continental Airlines Corp., Debtors. Continental Airlines, Inc. And the Continental Airlines Working Pilots Committee, Appellants-Cross v. Air Line Pilots Association, International, and Joseph E. O'neill, Appellees-Cross in the Matter of Continental Airlines Corp., Debtors. Continental Airlines, Inc. v. James B. Evans, in the Matter of Continental Airlines Corp., Debtors. Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Joseph E. O'neill, in the Matter of Continental Airlines Corp., Debtors. Continental Airlines, Inc., Continental Airlines Working Pilots Committee, Intervenor-Appellant v. Joseph E. O'Neill
In AWECO, this court held that a court may approve a compromise or settlement that forms part of a plan of reorganization only when it is "fair and equitable." "The words 'fair and equitable' are terms of art--they mean that 'senior interests are entitled to full priority over junior ones.' " Id. at 278. 33 The O'Neill Group contends that, under the "fair and equitable" standard, the bankruptcy court may also consider whether the settlement is fair and equitable to the debtor's employees.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International (In re Continental Airlines, Inc.)
In AWECO, this court held that a court may approve a compromise or settlement that forms part of a plan of reorganization only when it is “fair and equitable.” “The words ‘fair and equitable’ are terms of art — they mean that ‘senior interests are entitled to full priority over junior ones.’ ” Id. at 278.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Reiss v. Hagmann
We agree with the Fifth Circuit that “[a]n approval of a compromise, absent a sufficient factual foundation, inherently constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 299.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,173 Gail Elin Reiss A/K/A Gail E. Reiss, Debtor v. Guilford Hagmann, Trustee, Bank of Woodward, Creditor-Appellant v. Mildred v. Fox, Trustee of the Gail E. Reiss Trust
We agree with the Fifth Circuit that "[a]n approval of a compromise, absent a sufficient factual foundation, inherently constitutes an abuse of discretion." Id. at 299.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roche v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Instead, it must be shown that the defendant “is enabled to commit the predicate offenses solely by virtue of his position in the enterprise or involvement in or control over the affairs of the enterprise; or ... the predicate offenses are related to the activities of that enterprise." Id. at 226 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Nationwide Sports Distributors, Inc.
Moreover, “[t]he Trustee [or debtor in possession], as proponent of the proposed settlement, has the burden of persuasion that the settlement is in the best interest of the estate.” In re Bell & Beckwith, 93 B.R. 569, 574 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio.1988); see Matter of AWECO, Inc., 725 F.2d 293 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984); In re Neshaminy Office Bldg.
discussed
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES of America v. Darus H. ZEHRBACH, Appellant in No. 93-7477. Alex A. Mervis, Appellant in No. 93-7493
(2×)
See Maj.Op. at 1265, citing United States v. Jannotti, 729 F.2d 213, 219-20 (3d Cir.), cert. denied 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 244, 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation. Agapita Trajano Archimedes Trajano v. Ferdinand E. Marcos, and Imee Marcos-Manotoc
See McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 588 (9th Cir.1983) (Congress did not intend to assert jurisdiction over foreign states for events occurring wholly within their own territory), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States of America, in 91-1201 v. Thomas L. McGill Jr., in 91-1122
(2×)
See United States v. Jannotti, 729 F.2d 213 , 220 n. 2 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States of America, in No. 89-5510 v. Gaetano Vastola, in No. 89-5372 v. Elias Saka, in No. 89-5383
See United States v. Jannotti, 729 F.2d 213 , 219-20 n. 2 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984) (defining the “high probability” standard of appellate review used to determine the harmlessness of nonconstitutional errors in the admission of evidence); Government of the Virgin Islands v. Toto, 529 F.2d 278, 284 (3d Cir.1976).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. James L. Pratt, Jr.
Accord United States v. Jannotti, 729 F.2d 213, 224 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Cavin v. United States
See McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 591 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Levy
Thus, in reviewing the district court’s decision to admit Yehuda’s statements under Ammar , our inquiry is restricted to “whether, viewing the [other] evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the district court had ‘reasonable grounds’ for concluding that, more probably than not, [the defendants] were cocon-spirators.” United States v. Inadi, 748 F.2d 812, 817 (3d Cir.), rev’d on other grounds, 475 U.S. 387 , 106 S.Ct. 1121 , 89 L.Ed.2d 390 (1986); see United States v. Janotti, 729 F.2d 213, 218 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 244, 83 L.…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Yaffa Levy, A/K/A \Annette Amar\"
Thus, in reviewing the district court's decision to admit Yehuda's statements under Ammar, our inquiry is restricted to "whether, viewing the [other] evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the district court had 'reasonable grounds' for concluding that, more probably than not, [the defendants] were coconspirators." United States v. Inadi, 748 F.2d 812, 817 (3d Cir.), rev'd on other grounds, 475 U.S. 387 , 106 S.Ct. 1121 , 89 L.Ed.2d 390 (1986); see United States v. Janotti, 729 F.2d 213, 218 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 244, 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984)…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Felix Rodriguez
Accord United States v. Jannotti, 729 F.2d 213, 224 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984); United States v. Wolffs, 594 F.2d 77, 80 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stansel v. American Security Bank
See United States v. Jannotti, 729 F.2d 213, 226 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984); Banque Worms v. Luis A. Duque Pena e Hijos, Ltda., 652 F.Supp. 770, 772-773 (S.D.N.Y.1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Tafero v. Dugger
See Caldwell v. Mississippi, 469 U.S. 879 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Willie H. Harris, Ernestine Harris v. Polskie Linie Lotnicze, AKA Lot Polish Airlines, a Corporation, Defendant
See McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 122 F.2d 582, 586-87 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Morton H. Halperin v. Henry A. Kissinger
See Zweibon v. Mitchell (“Zweibon IV"), 720 F.2d 162 , 173 n. 18 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984); Chagnon v. Bell, 642 F.2d 1248 , 1262 n. 25 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert, denied, 453 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 3142 , 69 L.Ed.2d 994 (1981); cf. United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960 , 94 S.Ct. 1490 , 39 L.Ed.2d 575 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eileen Bailey v. Grand Trunk Lines New England, Canadian National Railway, Midline Division, St. Lawrence Region
Peruana de Vapores, S.A., 660 F.2d 61 , 63-64 (3d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 926 , 102 S.Ct. 1971 , 72 L.Ed.2d 441 (1982); Williams v. Shipping Corp. of India, 653 F.2d 875, 880-81 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 982 , 102 S.Ct. 1490 , 71 L.Ed.2d 691 (1982); see McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582 (9th Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Campesinos Unidos, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, Center for Employment Training, Intervenor-Respondent
See McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 587 (9th Cir.1983) (rejecting a literal reading of a statute because the *1070 intent of Congress was to the contrary), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. De Peri, Joseph. Appeal of Joseph De Peri. United States of America v. Martin, James. Appeal of James Martin. United States of America v. Linso, Dennis. Appeal of Dennis Linso. United States of America v. Morrell, George. Appeal of George Morrell. United States of America v. Pecic, Henry. Appeal of Henry Pecic. United States of America v. Murphy, Theodore. Appeal of Theodore Murphy. United States of America v. Katz, George. Appeal of George Katz
See United States v. Jannotti, 729 F.2d 213, 226 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. De Peri
See United States v. Jannotti, 729 F.2d 213, 226 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chula Vista City School District v. Bell
“Moreover, it is firmly established that, where the real effort of the complaining party is to obtain money from the federal government, the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of claims ... cannot be evaded ... by framing a district court complaint to appear to seek only injunctive, mandatory or declaratory relief against government officials____” Bakersfield City School District v. Boyer, 610 F.2d 621, 628 (9th Cir.1979); accord McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 590-91 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors
See McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984); Goar v. Compania Peruana de Vapores, 688 F.2d 417 (5th Cir.1982); Rex v. CIA.
discussed
Cited "see"
Chula Vista City School District v. T.H. Bell, United States Secretary of Education, Chula Vista City School District v. T.H. Bell, United States Secretary of Education
"Moreover, it is firmly established that, where the real effort of the complaining party is to obtain money from the federal government, the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of claims ... cannot be evaded ... by framing a district court complaint to appear to seek only injunctive, mandatory or declaratory relief against government officials...." Bakersfield City School District v. Boyer, 610 F.2d 621, 628 (9th Cir.1979); accord McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 590-91 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984). 11 The instant appeal is…
discussed
Cited "see"
Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors
See McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984); Goar v. Compania Peruana de Vapores, 688 F.2d 417 (5th Cir.1982); Rex v. CIA.
discussed
Cited "see"
Lois Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
See also Australian Government Aircraft Factories v. Lynne, 743 F.2d 672, 674-75 (9th Cir.1984) (injuries to pilot’s family in United States are indirect consequence of plane crash in Indonesia and insufficient to support jurisdiction under direct effect exception of § 1605(a)(2)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1189 , 84 L.Ed.2d 335 (1985); see generally McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582 , 589 n. 10 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. - 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Nolan-Cooper
See, e.g., United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1106 , 102 S.Ct. 2906 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1315 (1982), 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 244, 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984); United States v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050, 1070 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 623 , 136 L.Ed.2d 546 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.
In re Public Service Co., 114 B.R. 820, 827 (Bkrtcy.D.N.H.1990), stay denied, In re Public Service Co., 116 B.R. 347 (Bkrtcy.D.N.H.1990); see also, In re AWECO, Inc., 725 F.2d 293 (5th Cir.1984), reh. denied, In re AWECO, Inc., 732 F.2d 941 (5th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, AWECO, Inc. v. United States, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
For RICO conspiracy purposes, "[i]t is well-established that one conspirator need not know the identities of all his co-conspirators, nor be aware of all the details of the conspiracy in order to be found to have agreed to participate in it." United States v. Riccobene, 709 F.2d 214, 225 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 849 , 104 S.Ct. 157 , 78 L.Ed.2d 145 (1983); see also United States v. Jannotti, 729 F.2d 213, 226 (3d Cir.1984) (government must show person enabled to commit predicate offenses solely by virtue of his involvement in enterprise, or that predicate offenses are related to enter…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Zauber
For RICO conspiracy purposes, “[i]t is well-established that one conspirator need not know the identities of all his co-conspirators, nor be aware of all the details of the conspiracy in order to be found to have agreed to participate in it.” United States v. Riccobene, 709 F.2d 214, 225 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 849 , 104 S.Ct. 157 , 78 L.Ed.2d 145 (1983); see also United States v. Jannotti, 729 F.2d 213, 226 (3d Cir.1984) (government must show person enabled to commit predicate offenses solely by virtue of his involvement in enterprise, or that predicate offenses are related to e…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Pierre Michel Henri Giry and Steven Seward
Factual impossibility is no defense.” United States v. Senatore, 509 F.Supp. 1108, 1110 (E.D.Pa.1981) (statutory citations omitted); see also United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 591 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1106 , 102 S.Ct. 2906 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1315 (1982), aff'd on later appeal, 729 F.2d 213 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984) (“Because an agreement between two or more persons to commit criminal acts poses, in and of itself, a serious danger to social order, it is proscribed by the law of conspiracy ...
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Jensch
See, e.g., United States v. Jannotti, 729 F.2d 213 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 243 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Felix E. Capoeman v. Amos Reed
Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1, 25-26 (D.C.Cir.1984); see also Zweibon v. Mitchell, 720 F.2d 162, 168-69 (D.C.Cir.1983) (“clearly established law” difficult to define), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
mandamus is the proper remedy State ex rel. Lloyd v. Clayton
While it is true that the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to determine whether a settlement between the debtor and other parties is fair and equitable,22 "looking only to the fairness of the settlement as between the debtor and the settling claimant [and ignoring third-party rights] contravenes a basic notion of fairness." In re Aweco, Inc., 725 F.2d at 298; see also F.D.I.C. v. Jones (In re Jones), 966 F.2d 169, 173 (5th Cir.1992) (discussing § 105(a) and court's duty to avoid unfairness and 22 "The bankruptcy court derives its authority to approve settlements from Bankruptcy Rule 9019(a).…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
AWECO, Inc.
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 83-2000.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 9, 1984.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.