green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
9.7 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ronald Jones v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company Bank of America N. A. R. Dwayne Danner Kelly Orlando And Robert Mowery
before we can determine if the trial court has abused its discretion by improperly restricting the voir dire examination, it is necessary for the record to reflect what questions the defendant desired to ask the jury panel.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
James Lynn Enochs v. State
before we can determine if the trial court has abused its discretion by improperly restricting the voir dire examination, it is necessary for the record to reflect what questions the defendant desired to ask the jury panel.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Krocka v. Bransfield
whenever a balancing of interests is required, the facts of the existing easelaw must closely correspond to the contested action before the defendant official is subject to liability
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Intern. v. Eastern Air Lines
maine central
discussed
Cited "see"
Sherill Ann Small v. State
See Easterling v. State, 710 S.W.2d 569, 574 (Tex.Crim.App.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 170 , 93 L.Ed.2d 108 (1986); Mowbray v. State, 788 S.W.2d 658, 668 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1101 , 111 S.Ct. 999 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Robert Baar v. Jefferson County Board of Educ.
See Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268, 276 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 [, 107 S.Ct. 172 , 93 L.Ed.2d 109 ] (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Porter v. City of Manchester
See Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268, 276 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 (1986); see also Frazier v. Bailey, 957 F.2d 920, 931 (1st Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited "see"
John E. Jenkins v. North American Van Lines, Incorporated Charles E. Gere
See Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268 , 273 n. 7 (7th Cir.) ("A motion for directed verdict is not required as a predicate for a motion for a new trial."), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Saenz v. State
See Easterling v. State, 710 S.W.2d 569, 578 (Tex.Crim.App.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 170 , 93 L.Ed.2d 108 (1986); Bryson v. State, 820 S.W.2d 197, 198-199 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1991, no pet.); Johnson v. State, 800 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd).
cited
Cited "see"
Williams v. Kentucky
See Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268, 276 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 172 , 93 L.Ed.2d 109 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Williams v. Commonwealth Of Kentucky
See Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268, 276 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 172 , 93 L.Ed.2d 109 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Caribe Bmw, Inc. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
See Acme Refrigeration of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 785 F.2d 1240, 1243 (5th Cir.) (100% ownership, without control, not enough to create a “single seller”), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 171 , 93 L.Ed.2d 108 (1986); Island Tobacco Co. v. R.J.
discussed
Cited "see"
Caribe v. Bayerische
See Acme Refrigeration of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 785 F.2d 1240, 1243 (5th Cir.) (100% ownership, without control, not enough to create a "single seller"), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 (1986); Island Tobacco Co. v. R.J.
discussed
Cited "see"
Caribe v. Bayerische
See Acme Refrigeration of Baton ___ ____________________________ Rouge, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 785 F.2d 1240, 1243 (5th ____________ _______________ Cir.) (100% ownership, without control, not enough to create a "single seller"), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 (1986); _____________ Island Tobacco Co. v. R.J.
cited
Cited "see"
Jaramillo v. State
TEX.R.APP.P. 52(b); see Easterling v. State, 710 S.W.2d 569, 575 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 170 , 93 L.Ed.2d 108 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Auriemma v. Rice
See Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268 , 276 n. 19 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 172 , 93 L.Ed.2d 109 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Auriemma v. Rice
See Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268 , 276 n. 19 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 172 , 93 L.Ed.2d 109 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ron Grubb v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
See Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268, 274 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 172 , 93 L.Ed.2d 109 (1986) (applying same rationale to j.n.o.v. motion based on qualified immunity defense not raised in directed verdict motion at close of all evidence).
discussed
Cited "see"
Grubb v. Federal Deposit Insurance
See Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268, 274 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 172 , 93 L.Ed.2d 109 (1986) (applying same rationale to j.n.o.v. motion based on qualified immunity defense not raised in directed verdict motion at close of all evidence).
cited
Cited "see"
Whitt v. City of Rockford
See Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268, 276 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, [ 479 U.S. 848 ] 107 S.Ct. 172 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 109 ] (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Dwayne A. Washington
The district court could reasonably conclude not only that the jurors were capable of understanding the evidence in the instant case and determining facts in controversy simply by evaluating the agents’ and appellants’ own words and demeanor on tape and in the courtroom, see United States v. Mitchell, 49 F.3d 769, 780 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 327 , 133 L.Ed.2d 228 (1995); see also United States v. Devine, 787 F.2d 1086, 1087-88 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 170 , 93 L.Ed.2d 107 (1986), but that the general expert testimony on corruption trainin…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Saur v. State
See, e.g., Easterling v. State, 710 S.W.2d 569, 576 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 170 , 93 L.Ed.2d 108 (1986) (noting record did not include either original jury list showing names of jurors called for jury duty or juror information sheets filled out by those appearing for jury duty); Miles v. State, 644 S.W.2d 23, 26 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1982, no pet.) (directing trial court to include jury cut list and any jury information sheets used in selecting jury and requesting sample jury information sheet if actual jury information sheets were unavailable).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Caribe BMW, Inc. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
See, e.g., Acme Refrigeration of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 785 F.2d 1240, 1243 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 171 , 93 L.Ed.2d 108 (1986), Island Tobacco Co. v. R.J.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kevin Frazier v. Edward N. Bailey
Baker, 887 F.2d at 187 ; Myers, 810 F.2d at 1462-63 ; see also Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268, 276 (7th Cir.) (discussed difficulty of finding “clearly established” right in first amendment area subject to balancing of interests), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 172 , 93 L.Ed.2d 109 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Altshuler v. City of Seattle
See, e.g., Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268, 276 (7th Cir.), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 848 (1986). 4 See also State v. Bolte, 115 N.J. 579 , 560 A.2d 644 (under facts similar to those in Altschuler I, court interpreted Welsh to require, at the very least, some threat to public safety, in addition to "hot pursuit", to justify a warrantless entry and arrest for minor traffic offenses), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 936 , 107 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Asberry v. State
See, e.g., Easterling v. State, 710 S.W.2d 569, 582 (Tex.Crim.App.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 170 , 93 L.Ed.2d 108 ; Travelstead v. State, 693 S.W.2d 400, 402 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Perez v. State, 704 S.W.2d 499, 501 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1986, no pet.).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Powell v. Basham
See, e.g., Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268, 278 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 172 , 93 L.Ed.2d 109 (1986).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Powell v. Basham
See, e.g., Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268, 278 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 172 , 93 L.Ed.2d 109 (1986).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kelly Rollins and Dan Slaughter
See, e.g., United States v. Devine, 787 F.2d 1086, 1088 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 170 , 93 L.Ed.2d 107 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gutzwiller v. Fenik
Further, "where a defendant moves for [a] directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's testimony and does not renew its motion at the close of the entire testimony, defendant waives its original motion and is precluded from questioning the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal." Young, 793 F.2d at 794 . 62 As explained by the Fifth Circuit in Bohrer, there are two purposes for the requirement of a motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence as a predicate for JNOV: 63 to enable the trial court to re-examine the question of evidentiary insufficiency as a matter of law if the …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gutzwiller v. Fenik
Bohrer v. Hanes Cory., 715 F.2d at 216 ; see also Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268, 273-74 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 172 , 93 L.Ed.2d 109 (1986); Merwine v. Bd. of Trustees, 754 F.2d 631, 634 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 823 , 106 S.Ct. 76 , 88 L.Ed.2d 62 (1986).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Alm v. Moreth
See, e.g., Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268 , 276 n. 18 (7th), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 172 , 93 L.Ed.2d 109 (1986). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chicago and North Western Transportation Co., Frvr Corporation, and Interstate Commerce Commission v. Railway Labor Executives Association
See also Maine Central Railroad Co. v. United Transportation Union, 787 F.2d 780, 782 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 169 , 93 L.Ed.2d 107 (1986) (holding that where a rail carrier has presented evidence that arguably supports its claim of a contractually-based past practice covering a matter in dispute “the court’s inquiry must end; it is not for it to weigh, and decide who has the better of the argument”).
United Transportation Union
v.
Maine Central Railroad Co.
v.
Maine Central Railroad Co.
No. 86-10.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1986.
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.