green
Positive treatment
11.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. McGlory
In United States v. Gibbs, 739 F.2d 838 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985), we stated “this preponderance standard simply requires the prosecution to present sufficient proof so that the trial judge may find ‘that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.’ ” Id. at 843 (quotation omitted).
discussed
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
In United States v. Gibbs, 739 F.2d 838 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985), we stated "this preponderance standard simply requires the prosecution to present sufficient proof so that the trial judge may find 'that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.' " Id. at 843 (quotation omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. William John Helmel, United States of America v. Arthur Charl Stowe, United States of America v. Barry Michael Glick, United States of America v. William George Paulsen
(3×)
The court stated that had the defendant "alerted the Government and the district court to the fact that no proof of unavailability had been presented by the Government, that deficiency could have been cured." Id. at 847.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Helmel
(3×)
The court stated that had the defendant “alerted the Government and the district court to the fact that no proof of unavailability had been presented by the Government, that deficiency could have been cured.” Id. at 847.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A.
See United States v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 740 F.2d 817, 828 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 778 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985). 6 .In its earlier pleadings, American Express Bank also argued that by the time of the forfeiture it had dissipated the set off funds and, therefore, that the United States was barred from seeking substitute assets from a third party.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Weiss
See Wright v. United States, 122 F.2d 1048, 1050 n. 1 (2d Cir.1984) (holding that district court correctly overruled government’s contention that parolee did not fall within “in custody” requirement), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); United States v. Loschiavo, 531 F.2d 659, 662 (2d Cir.1976) (“[P]risoners on parole have been held to satisfy the ‘in custody’ requirement.”) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ibekwe
See Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); Chukwurah v. United States, 813 F.Supp. 161, 163-64 (E.D.N.Y.1993).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Styskal
See, Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S. Ct. 779 , 83 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Wallach, Rusty Kent London, Eugene Robert Wallach, A/K/A \E. Robert (Bob) Wallach
(2×)
See Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048 , 1056 n. 8 (2d Cir.1984) (extent of prejudice that must be shown depends on what stage proceedings have reached), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Noriega
See In re Grand Jury Proceedings Bank of Nova Scotia, 740 F.2d 817, 830-31 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 778 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985) (discussing the Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stanley Dick v. Gene Scroggy, Warden
(2×)
See Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048, 1056-57 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985), where Judge Friendly quoted from United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 184-85 , 99 S.Ct. 2235, 2240 , 60 L.Ed.2d 805 (1979), as follows: 31 "It has, of course, long been settled law that an error that may justify reversal on direct appeal will not necessarily support a collateral attack on a final judgment.
discussed
Cited "see"
William C. Brennan v. United States
See Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048, 1056-57 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); Fiumara v. United States, 727 F.2d 209, 213 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Spawr Optical Research, Inc., Walter J. Spawr, and Frances Spawr, Defendants
(2×)
See Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048 , 1050 n. 1 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Leo Klein
See United States v. Richards, 737 F.2d *1501 1307, 1310 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); Clayborne v. Califano, 603 F.2d 372 (2d Cir.1979); see also Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 537 , 54 S.Ct. 505, 516 , 78 L.Ed. 940 (1934) (due process is satisfied if means Congress selected bears some reasonable relation to a “proper legislative purpose” and is “neither arbitrary nor discriminatory”).
cited
Cited "see"
Nicholas v. Sammons
See Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Sealed Case
See In re Grand Jury Proceedings (the Bank of Nova Scotia), 740 F.2d 817 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 778 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 691 F.2d 1384 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1119 , 103 S.Ct. 3086 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1348 (1983); cf. United States v. Vetco Inc., 691 F.2d 1281 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1098 , 102 S.Ct. 671 , 70 L.Ed.2d 639 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stone v. Paradise Holdings, Inc.
See Medina v. Perez, 733 F.2d 170 (1st Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 778 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985). 6 We conclude that there existed here a sufficient relationship to traditional maritime activity to support admiralty jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited "see"
Paradise Holdings, Inc. v. Paradise Holdings, Inc.
See Medina v. Perez, 733 F.2d 170 (1st Cir. 1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 778 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985). 6 We conclude that there existed here a sufficient relationship to traditional maritime activity to support admiralty jurisdiction.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Inadi, Joseph. Appeal of Joseph Inadi
See United States v. Gibbs, 739 F.2d 838 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Castro, Victor. Appeal of Victor Castro. United States of America v. Suarez, Tomas. In No. 85-1132 United States of America v. Garcia-Remedio, Pablo. Appeal of Pablo Garcia-Remedio
Redden, supra at 506; see United States v. Gibbs, 739 F.2d 838 , 843 n. 11 (3d Cir.1984) (in banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Castro
Redden, supra at 506; see United States v. Gibbs, 739 F.2d 838 ,843 n. 11 (3d Cir.1984) (in banc), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Link v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
See United States v. Gibbs, 739 F.2d 838, 845 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Kenneth Michael Hogan v. Scott D. Overman
See Medina v. Perez, 733 F.2d 170, 171 (1 Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 778 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. George G. Davis
See In re Grand Jury Proceedings Bank of Nova Scotia (“Nova Scotia II”), 740 F.2d 817 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 778 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985). 16 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Graham, Robert B. Appeal of Robert B. Graham Sr. United States of America v. Greenspun, Milton, United States of America v. Kirby, William P. Appeal of William P. Kirby. United States of America v. Balchaitis, Joseph
See United States v. Gibbs, 739 F.2d 838 (3d Cir.1984) (issue not preserved unless raised at earliest possible time), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); United States v. Bonacorsa, 528 F.2d 1218 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 935 , 96 S.Ct. 2647 , 49 L.Ed.2d 386 (1976) (objection to whole count of indictment doesn't preserve objection to particular specifications).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Graham
See United States v. Gibbs, 739 F.2d 838 (3d Cir.1984) (issue not preserved unless raised at earliest possible time), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); United States v. Bonacorsa, 528 F.2d 1218 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 935 , 96 S.Ct. 2647 , 49 L.Ed.2d 386 (1976) (objection to whole count of indictment doesn’t preserve objection to particular specifications).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nieves v. Kelly
See, e.g., Wright v. United States, 559 F.Supp. 1139, 1146 (E.D.N.Y.1983) (“Brady, however, does not require the government to anticipate all possible defenses and provide the defendant with otherwise irrelevant information to bolster one possible factual theory, particularly where, as here, the theory itself ... is demonstrably implausible.”), affd, 732 F.2d 1048 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lee Vue, United States of America v. Neng Vue
See, e.g., United States v. Linn, 880 F.2d 209, 217 (9th Cir.1989), and United States v. Richards, 737 F.2d 1307, 1310 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hughes v. Bowers
The court explained that the use of a special prosecutor per se is not improper “where the District Attorney retains control and management of the prosecution, and the special prosecutor is not guilty of conduct prejudicial to the defendant, and the rights of the defendant are duly observed.” Id. at 325 (emphasis added); see also Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048, 1055-58 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985) (due process not violated where no evidence of specific misbehavior on part of prosecutor and where special prosecutor had no pecunia…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Gill v. Missouri State Bd. of Probation and Parole
See, e.g., United States v. Richards, 737 F.2d 1307 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Anwar v. United States
Affidavits submitted by the government in opposition to a § 2255 motion cannot be deemed a part of the “records and files of the case” for the purpose of determining whether petitioner is entitled to a hearing, Taylor v. United States, 487 F.2d 307, 308 (2d Cir.1973), though such affidavits “may be considered in assessing the sufficiency of the petitioner’s supporting affidavit.” Dalli, 491 F.2d at 762 n. 4; see also Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048 , 1057 n. 10 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); United States v. Franzese, 525 F…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Government of Virgin Islands v. Brathwaite
See, e.g., United States v. Gibbs, 739 F.2d 838, 843 (3d Cir.1984) (in banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); In re Japanese Electronic Products Litigation, 723 F.2d 238, 261 (3d Cir.1983), cert. granted in part, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 1863 , 85 L.Ed.2d 157 (1985); United States v. Ammar, 714 F.2d 238, 245 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 936 , 104 S.Ct. 344 , 78 L.Ed.2d 311 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Brathwaite, Edgar, in No. 84-3790. United States of America v. Brathwaite, Edgar, in Nos. 84-3791. United States of America v. Ottley, Peter, in No. 84-3792. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Ottley, Peter Edwin. Appeal of Peter Ottley
See, e.g., United States v. Gibbs, 739 F.2d 838, 843 (3d Cir.1984) (in banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); In re Japanese Electronic Products Litigation, 723 F.2d 238, 261 (3d Cir.1983), cert. granted in part, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1863 , 85 L.Ed.2d 157 (1985); United States v. Ammar, 714 F.2d 238, 245 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 936 , 104 S.Ct. 344 , 78 L.Ed.2d 311 (1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bank of Nova Scotia
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 84-329.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 7, 1985.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.