green
Positive treatment
10.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 48 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Jamail, Inc., Cross-Appellant v. The Carpenters District Council of Houston Pension & Welfare Trusts, Cross-Appellee
But see, Award Service, Inc. v. Northern California Retail Clerks Unions and Food Employers loint Pension Trust Fund, 763 F.2d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 850 , 88 L.Ed.2d 890 (1986). 7 .
discussed
Cited "but see"
Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Howard Baer, Inc.
But see Award Service, Inc. v. Northern California Retail Clerks Unions and Food Employers Joint Pension Trust Fund, 763 F.2d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.1985) (employer cause of action is properly implied), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 850 , 88 L.Ed.2d 890 (1986).
discussed
Cited "but see"
George Kwatcher v. Massachusetts Service Employees Pension Fund
Accord Plucinski, 875 F.2d at 1056; Dime Coal, 796 F.2d at 398-99 ; Whitworth, 794 F.2d at 228-33 ; Soft Drink, 679 F.Supp. at 745-48 ; but see Award Service, Inc. v. Northern California Retail Clerks Unions and Food Employers Joint Pension Trust Fund, 763 F.2d 1066, 1068-69 (9th Cir.1985) (finding implied right of action), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 850 , 88 L.Ed.2d 890 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Wallen
(2×)
See United States v. Record, 873 F.2d at 1373 (citing United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d at 1436 , cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 848 , 88 L.Ed.2d 889 (1986)).
cited
Cited "see"
Richardson v. Evans
See United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d 1426 , 1441 n. 6 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Brown v. Francis
See Allbritton Communications Co. v. NLRB, 766 F.2d 812, 820 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S. Ct. 850 , 88 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Barry Brown Jolie Stahl, as They Are Trustees of the Long Bay Trust v. Leo Francis, as He is the Commissioner of the Department of Public Works Delma G. Hodge, as She is the Commissioner of the Department of Property and Procurement of the Government of the Virgin Islands Government of the Virgin Islands of the United States of America (d.c. No. 92-Cv-00081). Government of the Virgin Islands v. 0.459 Acres of Land Consisting of Following: Parcel No. 6a Estate Thomas Kings Quarter and Parcel No. 9a Estate Thomas, Virgin Islands Long Bay Trust (d.c. No. 93-Cv-00059), Leo Francis, as He is the Commissioner of the Department of Public Works Delma G. Hodge, as She is the Commissioner of the Government of the Virgin Islands Government of the Virgin Islands of the United States of America
See Allbritton Communications Co. v. NLRB, 766 F.2d 812 , 820 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 850 , 88 L.Ed.2d 891 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Bassett
See United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d 1426, 1436 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986); 1 J.
cited
Cited "see"
RX Pharmacies Plus, Inc. v. Weil
See Public Service Co. of Colo. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 754 F.2d 1555 , 1567 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 849 , 88 L.Ed.2d 890 (1986); Norman J.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. C. Raymond Dietz, Sr.
See United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1062-63 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986) 2 Although it does not affect Dietz's sentence, we note that the amount of the tax loss was $28,723.41, rather than the $28,765 used by the court
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. John G. Bridges
See United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1060 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986) (instruction that a witness is presumed to tell the truth does not constitute plain error); United States v. Safley, 408 F.2d 603, 605 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 983 (1969) (same given totality of instructions); see also United States v. Hall, 854 F.2d 1036, 1041 (7th Cir.1988) ("In the context of the instructions as a whole, we find that the single phrase on the general assumption of a witness' truthfulness ... did not invade the jury's ability to judge the witnesses' credibility"). 24 No…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Olumide Oladipo Hassan, A/K/A Alex R. Shoga, A/K/A Hassan A. Akintola, A/K/A Hassan Gallexy, A/K/A Gallexy
See United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (holding admissible second-hand information offered not for its truth, but to provide context for the investigation and arrest of the defendant), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. John Lincoln Coleman
See United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986) (testimony outlining the background of an investigation was not offered to prove its truth, and thus was not hearsay).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Chadwick Cestnik
See Coleman, 7 F.3d at 1503 . 25 To establish the element of agreement, the prosecution must show " 'a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding' with coconspirators to accomplish one or more of the objects of the conspiracy." Angulo-Lopez, 7 F.3d at 1510 (quoting United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d 1426, 1431 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Arkel Samual Saulsbury, United States of America v. Alan J. Jordan
See United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d 1426, 1436 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986) (government must articulate basis for admission of evidence and trial court must identify purpose for which evidence is offered); United States v. Hodges, 770 F.2d 1475 , 1480 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1985) (uncharged crime or act must be close in time to crime charged); see also McCormick on Evidence, Sec. 190 at 811 (John W.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Vittorio Giuseppe Cucci, A/K/A Victor, United States of America v. Joseph Covello, A/K/A Giuseppe
See United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063-64 (4th Cir. 1985) (agent may testify about statements made by other officers which led him to arrest defendant as they were offered to explain the testifying agent's actions, not for their truth), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Johnnie B. Davis, A/K/A Arthur Jerome Davis
(2×)
See United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d 1426, 1431 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 848 , 88 L.Ed.2d 889 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fernando Talamante
(2×)
See United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d 1426, 1436 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 848 , 88 L.Ed.2d 889 (1986); see also United States v. Harrison, 942 F.2d 751, 759 (10th Cir.1991) (even if evidence is relevant under Rule 404(b), the court may exercise its discretion and exclude the evidence under Rule 403). 5 Thus, the record *1157 gives no indication of how the trial court would have applied Rule 404(b) in this case.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Niger Pierre, United States of America v. Willie Swann
See United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1060 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986). 24 In view of the above, the judgments of the district court, both as to Pierre and Swann, are affirmed. 25 AFFIRMED. * We are likewise unpersuaded by Swann's argument that the money from the safe should have been excluded because it was not sufficiently linked to drug transactions
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert F. Baxter, United States of America v. Nancy Baxter
See United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052 , 1064 n. 15 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lazaro Rosell
See United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Damian Hawkins and Peter Hawkins
See United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 848 , 849, 88 L.Ed.2d 890 (1986) (hearsay statement admissible, although not for truth of assertions therein, to explain "why a government investigation was undertaken").
cited
Cited "see"
British Motor Car Distributors, Ltd. v. San Francisco Automotive Industries Welfare Fund
See Award Serv., Inc. v. Northern Cal. Retail Clerks Unions, 763 F.2d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 850 , 88 L.Ed.2d 890 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
British Motor Car Distributors, Ltd. v. San Francisco Automotive Industries Welfare Fund
See Award Serv., Inc. v. Northern Cal. Retail Clerks Unions, 763 F.2d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 850 , 88 L.Ed.2d 890 (198.6).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Alvaro Lazcano, A/K/A Jose A. Lazcano
See Fed.R.Evid. 802. “[A]n out of court statement is not hearsay if it is offered for the limited purpose of explaining why a government investigation was undertaken.” United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 848 , 88 L.Ed.2d 890 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Danny Ray Porter
(2×)
See United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d 1426, 1437 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 848 , 88 L.Ed.2d 889 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Henry F. Plucinski v. I.A.M. National Pension Fund, Perth Amboy Dry Dock Co., Perth Amboy Management Pension Fund, William T. Harth, Alfred C. Bruggeman, John Doe and Richard Roe, Third Party v. District No. 15, International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, Third Party Appeal of I.A.M. National Pension Fund, Perth Amboy Dry Dock Co.
See Award Service Inc. v. Northern California Retail Clerks Unions, 763 F.2d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 850 , 88 L.Ed.2d 890 (1986). 3 The Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have held that there is no such implied right of action.
discussed
Cited "see"
Plucinski v. I.A.M. National Pension Fund
See Award Service Inc. v. Northern California Retail Clerks Unions, 763 F.2d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 850 , 88 L.Ed.2d 890 (1986). 3 The Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have held that there is no such implied right of action.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mcglinchey v. Hartford Accident And Indemnity Co.
See Albritton Communications Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 766 F.2d 812 , 820 (3d Cir.1985) ("[R]emoval proceedings are in the nature of process, and defects in removal procedures are waivable."), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 850 , 88 L.Ed.2d 891 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
McGlinchey v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
See Albritton Communications Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 766 F.2d 812 , 820 (3d Cir.1985) (“[Rjemoval proceedings are in the nature of process, and defects in removal procedures are waivable.”), ce rt. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 850 , 88 L.Ed.2d 891 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Don Temple
(2×)
Accord United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d 1426, 1436 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 848 , 88 L.Ed.2d 889 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. John C. Tarantino, United States of America v. Robert H. Burns, United States of America v. Fred B. Black, Jr., United States of America v. Wilfred Samuel Bell, A/K/A Sam Bell
(2×)
The Supreme Court has stated that "[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, and Brady did not create one; ... 'the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded.' " Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837, 846 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) (quoting Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 474 , 93 S.Ct. 2208, 2212 , 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973)); see United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d 1426, 1440-41 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 848 , 88 L.Ed.2d 889 (1986); United States v. Pollack…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Tarantino
(2×)
The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, and Brady did not create one; ... ‘the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded.’” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837, 846 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) (quoting Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 474 , 93 S.Ct. 2208, 2212 , 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973)); see United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d 1426, 1440-41 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 848 , 88 L.Ed.2d 889 (1986); United States v.…
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Luis Anthony Rivera
(8×)
See United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d 1426, 1436-37 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 848 , 88 L.Ed.2d 889 (1986). .
cited
Cited "see"
Cole v. Pathmark of Fairlawn
See Taylor v. Ford Motor Co., 761 F.2d 931, 933 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 849 , 88 L.Ed.2d 890 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rollin Lewis v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 771 and Kenneth C. Laukhuff
See Taylor v. Ford Motor Co., 761 F.2d 931 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 849 , 88 L.Ed.2d 890 (1986) (suit to enforce an arbitration award); Sisco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 732 F.2d 1188 (3d Cir.1984) (action for breach of the duty of fair representation under the Railway Labor Act).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mary Brown v. Housing Authority of the City of McRae Georgia
(2×)
See Wright v. City of Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing Authority, 771 F.2d 833 (4th Cir.1985), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 848 , 88 L.Ed.2d 889 (1986). 3 We concur with that court’s well reasoned analysis and its conclusion that alleged violations of the rent provisions of the Brooke Amendment do not give rise to a section 1983 cause of action nor does there exist an implied private right of action to enforce the Brooke Amendment. 1.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Korea Exchange v. Trackwise
A similar approach was endorsed in Thermtron, where the Court suggested that courts determining whether a removal defect is jurisdictional for purposes of precluding review under 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d) should look to "whether the District Court would 9 have had jurisdiction of the case had it been filed initially in that court . . . ." Thermtron, 423 U.S. at 344 & n.8; see also Allbritton Communications Co. v. N.L.R.B., 766 F.2d 812 , 820 (3d Cir. 1985) (citing Grubbs and reiterating that in determining whether a defect is waivable, courts should consider whether the federal court would have ha…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Korea Exchange Bank, New York Branch v. Trackwise Sales Corp. Moo Sung Ko and Young S. Ko.
A similar approach was endorsed in Thermtron, where the Court suggested that courts determining whether a removal defect is jurisdictional for purposes of precluding review under 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d) should look to “whether the District Court would have had jurisdiction of the ease had it been filed initially in that court_” Thermtron, 423 U.S. at 344 & n. 8, 96 S.Ct. at 589 -590 n. 8; see also Allbritton Communications Co. v. N.L.R.B., 766 F.2d 812 , 820 (3d Cir.1985) (citing Grubbs and reiterating that in determining whether a defect is waivable, courts should consider whether the feder…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kenneth Lewis Craven
See United States v. Heyward, 729 F.2d 297 , 301 n. 2 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1105 (1985); see also United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (not hearsay), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. John Oscar Reives
See, e.g., United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1060 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 848 , 88 L.Ed.2d 890 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Andre D. Light
See, e.g., United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986) (out-of-court statement is not hearsay if it is offered for the limited purpose of explaining why a government investigation was undertaken).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Battle v. United States
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Lazcano, 881 F.2d 402, 407 (7th Cir.1989) (“[A]n out of court statement is not hearsay if it is offered for the limited purpose of explaining why a government investigation was undertaken”) (quoting United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 848 , 88 L.Ed.2d 890 (1986)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Wayne Yearwood
See, e.g., United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1060 (4th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States of America, Cross-Appellants v. James David Thornbrugh, Cross-Appellee
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d 1426, 1437 (10th Cir.1985) (testimony that defendant had sold airplane to pilot who had used it in earlier drug smuggling venture), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 848 , 88 L.Ed.2d 889 (1986); United States v. Walton, 552 F.2d 1354, 1365-66 (10th Cir.) (testimony that defendant interviewed by FBI while in jail on another matter), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 959 , 97 S.Ct. 2685 , 53 L.Ed.2d 277 (1977); United States v. Woodring, 446 F.2d 733, 737 (10th Cir.1971) (testimony that defendant subject of unrelated criminal charge).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Beattie
See, e.g., United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir. 1985) (“out of court statement is not hearsay if it is offered for the limited purpose of explaining why a government investigation was undertaken”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986); Olson v. State, 698 P.2d 107, 113-14 (Wyo. 1985) (officer’s testimony as to passing motorists’ statements concerning defendant’s erratic driving was not hearsay because only offered to explain why officer acted); see also C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fajardo v. Foodtown Supermarkets
Perez v. Dana Corp., 718 F.2d 581, 588 (3d Cir.1983); see also Taylor v. Ford Motor Co., 761 F.2d 931, 933-34 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 849 , 88 L.Ed.2d 890 (1986); Federation of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 736 F.2d 896, 901-02 (3d Cir.1984) (six-month limitations period applies to section 301 suits seeking to compel arbitration).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Angeline S. Protos v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
See also *134 Philbrook v. Ansonia Board of Education, 757 F.2d 476, 481 (2d Cir.1985), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 848 , 88 L.Ed.2d 889 (1986); Brown v. General Motors Corp., 601 F.2d 956, 959 (8th Cir.1979); Anderson v. General Dynamics Convair Aerospace Division, 589 F.2d 397, 401 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 921 , 99 S.Ct. 2848 , 61 L.Ed.2d 290 (1979).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wright
v.
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
v.
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
No. 85-5915.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 21, 1986.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma ‘pauperis and certiorari granted.