green
Positive treatment
4.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dale
In defendants’ view, these counts allege “a mere failure to disclose” information and, as such, cannot constitute a “trick, scheme or device.” In London , the court stated, “[T]he mere omission of failing truthfully to disclose a material fact, which is simply the negative aspect of the affirmative act of falsely stating the same material fact, does not make out an offense under the conceal or cover up clause of section 1001.” Id. at 214 (footnote omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Retail Associates, Inc. v. MacY's East, Inc.
See Copy-Data Sys., Inc. v. Toshiba Am., Inc., 755 F.2d 293, 301 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 , 106 S.Ct. 80 , 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985); Entis v. Atlantic Wire & Cable Corp., 335 F.2d 759, 763 (2d Cir.1964); Metal Assocs., Inc. v. Eastside Metal Spinning & Staming Corp., 165 F.2d 163 , 165 & n. 3 (2d Cir.1947); Italian & *699 French Wine Co. of Buffalo, Inc. v. Negociants U.S.A., Inc., 842 F.Supp. 693, 699 (W.D.N.Y. 1993).
cited
Cited "see"
Wickersham v. United States
See United States v. Swaim, 757 F.2d 1530, 1534 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 , 106 S.Ct. 81 , 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985); United States v. Hausmann, 711 F.2d 615, 616-17 (5th Cir.1983). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Italian & French Wine Co. of Buffalo, Inc. v. Negociants U.S.A., Inc.
See Copy-Data Systems v. Toshiba America, 755 F.2d 293 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 , 106 S.Ct. 80 , 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985) (oral distributorship agreement between parties held to be terminable only after a reasonable duration and upon reasonable notice); Midway Beverage Corp. v. Grolsch Importers, Inc., 1987 WL 119908 (N.Y.Sup.Ct., Kings Cty.1987) (oral distributorship agreement between beer wholesaler and importer held to be terminable only upon *699 reasonable notice).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jakeway
See United States v. Swaim, 757 F.2d 1530, 1533 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 , 106 S.Ct. 81 , 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
County of Esmeralda, State of Nevada v. U.S. Department of Energy, County of Inyo, State of California v. U.S. Department of Energy
(2×)
See International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Donovan, 746 F.2d 855, 862 (D.C.Cir.1984) (declining to review an administrative funding decision, stating that “[t]he distribution of public funds among competing social programs is an archetypically political task, involving the application of value judgments and predictions to innumerable alternatives”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 , 106 S.Ct. 81 , 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Argus Incorporated and Interphoto Corporation v. Eastman Kodak Co.
See Copy-Data Systems, Inc. v. Toshiba America, Inc., 755 F.2d 293, 300-01 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 80 , 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigation
See Leegin, 551 U.S. at 903 , 127 S.Ct. 2705 (citations omitted); see also, Copy-Data Sys., Inc. v. Toshiba Am., Inc., 663 F.2d 405, 411 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 , 106 S.Ct. 80 , 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. McGuire
Thus it is a badly misleading fiction to label a Gaudin-type issue as error.17 Quite simply, we should not try to force this square Gaudin peg into the round plain error hole drilled by Olano and Calverley; instead, we should proceed to carve out a separate but limited square hole into which Gaudin-type "errors" fit, then define the proper standard under which we review them. 15 507 U.S. at 732-34 , 113 S.Ct. at 1777 (citations omitted); See also Calverley, 37 F.3d at 162 . 16 See, e.g., United States v. Swaim, 757 F.2d 1530, 1534 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 , 106 S.Ct. 81 , 88 L.Ed…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jimmy D. McGuire
(2×)
In Calverley, we recognized these three criteria and explained that in "exceptional circumstances, appellate courts may, in the interest of justice, notice errors to which no objection has been made"; however, we also qualified that statement in the next sentence by stating that "[s]uch circumstances are sharply circumscribed by the plain error standard requiring that unobjected-to errors be 'plain' and 'affect substantial rights.' " 37 F.3d at 162 (emphasis added & footnotes omitted) Although the three Olano criteria have been described by the Supreme Court and this court as limitations on ap…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Music Center S.N.C. Di Luciano Pisoni & C. v. Prestini Musical Instruments Corp.
See also Copy-Data Systems, Inc. v. Toshiba America, Inc., 755 F.2d 293, 302 (2d Cir.) (possession of list of wholesale customers advertising under defendants’ name was not breach of implied covenant not to use confidential information), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 , 106 S.Ct. 80 , 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985); Town & Country House & Home Service, Inc. v. Newbery, 3 N.Y.2d 554, 558 , 170 N.Y.S.2d 328, 331 , 147 N.E.2d 724, 725 (1958) (no trade secret exists in names of customers openly engaged in business in advertised lo *559 cations).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vigil v. Rhoades
See also International Union, United Autoworkers v. Donovan, 746 F.2d 855 , 861 (D.C.Cir.1984) ("A lump-sum appropriation leaves it to the recipient agency (as a matter of law, at least) to distribute the funds among some or all of the permissible objects as it sees fit."), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 , 106 S.Ct. 81 , 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985). 11 The government contends that the termination of the Project services in this case is similar to the grant termination in CALC; that is, a mere funding determination which is unsuitable for judicial review.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vigil v. Rhoades
See also International Union, United Autoworkers v. Donovan, 746 F.2d 855 , 861 (D.C.Cir.1984) (“A lumpsum appropriation leaves it to the recipient agency (as a matter of law, at least) to distribute the funds among some or all of the permissible objects as it sees fit.”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 , 106 S.Ct. 81 , 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Heiser
v.
Heiser
v.
Heiser
No. 84-1931.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1985.
Published
Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.