Lehman Bros. v. Lilly, 446 U.S. 939 (1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Lehman Bros. v. Lilly, 446 U.S. 939 (1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case · “There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in halls and common areas of apartment buildings”
126 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 45 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Acosta · Strongest negative: United States v. Murdock Head, (Two Cases) (ca4, 1983-02-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "but see" United States v. Murdock Head, (Two Cases)
4th Cir. · 1983 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
See id. at 659 , 97 S.Ct. at 2040 (contrasting, for appealability purposes, double jeopardy and evidence suppression rulings); United States v. Powell, 632 F.2d 754, 758 (9th Cir.1980) (refusal to limit proof on collateral estoppel grounds not immediately appealable); United States v. Mock, 604 F.2d 336, 338-40 (5th Cir.1979) (same); but cf. United States v. Larkin, 605 F.2d 1360 (5th Cir.1979) (interlocutory appealability assumed though collateral estoppel would merely restrict proof), modified on other grounds, 611 F.2d 585 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2160 , 64 L.Ed.2d…
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Acosta
unknown court · 1992 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in halls and common areas of apartment buildings
discussed Cited "see" Freteluco v. Smith's Food and Drug Centers, Inc.
D. Nev. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164, 1170 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 (1980) (“‘The function 15 of rebuttal is to explain, repel, counteract or disprove evidence of the adverse party,’ and the decision to admit rebuttal testimony ‘is entrusted to the sound discretion of 16 the district court.’”); see also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed.
discussed Cited "see" Freteluco v. Smith's Food and Drug Centers, Inc.
D. Nev. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164, 1170 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 (1980) (“‘The function 4 of rebuttal is to explain, repel, counteract or disprove evidence of the adverse party,’ and the decision to admit rebuttal testimony ‘is entrusted to the sound discretion of 5 the district court.’”); see also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed.
discussed Cited "see" McCarthy v. C-Cor Electronics, Inc.
E.D. Pa. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See, *979 e.g., Lilly v. State Teachers Retirement System, 608 F.2d 55, 56 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2159 , 64 L.Ed.2d 792 (1980) (nine-day interval between secondary offering and announcement).
discussed Cited "see" United States of America v. Daniel Klubock (2×)
1st Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Field v. Brown, 610 F.2d 981, 991 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2160 , 64 L.Ed.2d 792 (1979).
cited Cited "see" United States v. William K. McGrane
8th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2161 , 64 L.Ed.2d 793 (1980).
discussed Cited "see" ca8 1984
8th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164, 1172 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2161 , 64 L.Ed.2d 793 (1980); cf. Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 533 , 84 S.Ct. 825, 828 , 11 L.Ed.2d 887 (1964) ("Since the erroneous statements * * * were not those of the affiant, they fail to show that the affiant was in bad faith or that he made any misrepresentations * * * in securing the search warrant.").
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Lee
8th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164, 1172 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2161 , 64 L.Ed.2d 793 (1980); cf. Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 533 , 84 S.Ct. 825, 828 , 11 L.Ed.2d 887 (1964) (“Since the erroneous statements * * ' were not those of the affiant, they fail to show that the affiant was in bad faith or that he made any misrepresentations * * * in securing the search warrant.”).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Anthony T. Mulherin, Jr., Harvey E. Hornsby, Robert A. Holliday, Henry Mulherin, Elizabeth Moore
11th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See U.S. v. Larkin, 605 F.2d 1360, 1369 (5th Cir.1979), modified on rehearing, 611 F.2d 585 , cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2160 , 64 L.Ed.2d 793 (1980).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Ignacio Perez, United States of America v. Luis Quintero
8th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164 , 1169 n. 2 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2161 , 64 L.Ed.2d 793 (1980).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. James Frederick Swayne (2×)
8th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164,1171 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2161 , 64 L.Ed.2d 793 (1980); United States v. Neumann, 585 F.2d 355, 357 (8th Cir.1978).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Gregory J. Wentz, United States of America v. John David Rodgers
8th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164, 1171 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2161 , 64 L.Ed.2d 793 (1980); United States v. Neumann, 585 F.2d 355, 357 (8th Cir. 1978).
cited Cited "see" Arnold B. ELKIND, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. LIGGETT & MYERS, INC., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
2d Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lilly v. State Teachers Retirement System, 608 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2159 , 64 L.Ed.2d 792 (1980); SEC v. Shapiro, 494 F.2d 1301, 1307 (2d Cir. 1974).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Marksman Partners, L.P. v. Chantal Pharmaceutical Corp.
C.D. Cal. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See In re Apple Computer, 886 F.2d at 1117-19; see also, Lilly v. State Teachers Retirement System, 608 F.2d 55, 56 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2159 , 64 L.Ed.2d 792 (1980) (sale of 80,000 shares nine days prior to public announcement that “problem loans” had increased from $7,000,000 to $16,000,-000); Jefferies & Co. v. Arkus-Duntov, 357 F.Supp. 1206 (S.D.N.Y.1973) (sale of 40,000 shares two days before the SEC suspended trading in the stock).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Crago
Ohio Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Larkin (C.A.5, 1979), 605 F.2d 1360, 1370 , certiorari denied (1980), 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2160 , 64 L.Ed.2d 793 (where jury failed to reach verdict on conspiracy count, but acquitted defendant on substantive counts, court held that collateral estoppel did not bar retrial of conspiracy count because “[n]o rational jury could have absolved Larkin of liability for * * * [the co-defendant’s] crimes because of the absence of a conspiracy between the two, while it simultaneously failed to acquit Larkin on the conspiracy charge itself.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Schneider v. Vennard
9th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Lilly v. State Teachers Retirement System, 608 F.2d 55, 56 (2d Cir.1979), cert, denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2159 , 64 L.Ed.2d 792 (1980) (sale of 80,000 shares nine days prior to public announcement that “problem loans” had increased from $7 million to $16 million); SEC v. Musella, 578 F.Supp. 425, 441 (S.D.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Apple Computer Securities Litigation
9th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Lilly v. State Teachers Retirement System, 608 F.2d 55, 56 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2159 , 64 L.Ed.2d 792 (1980) (sale of 80,000 shares nine days prior to public announcement that "problem loans" had increased from $7 million to $16 million); SEC v. Musella, 578 F.Supp. 425, 441 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (multiple episodes of stock trades within days or weeks of "public announcements having a significant market impact on the value of the securities"); Jefferies & Co. v. Arkus-Duntov, 357 F.Supp. 1206 (S.D.N.Y.1973) (sale of 40,000 shares two days before the SEC sus…
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Rubiel Marin-Cifuentes, United States of America v. Dairo Jesus Rios, United States of America v. Leonardo H. Quitian
8th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2161 , 64 L.Ed.2d 793 (1980).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell
S.D.N.Y. · 1989 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Layfield v. Bill Heard Chevrolet Co., 607 F.2d 1097, 1098-99 (5th Cir.1979) (per curiam), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2161 , 64 L.Ed.2d 793 (1980); Kirby v. P.R.
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Chaisson
N.H. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 954 (1980); see also United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 (1980).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Bothwell
usarmymilrev · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 583 F.2d 1194 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1117 , 99 S.Ct. 1025 , 59 L.Ed.2d 77 (1979); United States v. Baller, 519 F.2d 463 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1019 , 96 S.Ct. 456 , 46 L.Ed.2d 391 (1975); see also United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164 , 1169 n. 3 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2161 , 64 L.Ed.2d 793 (1980).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. John D. Hope
11th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164 , 1169 & n. 3 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2161 , 64 L.Ed.2d 793 (1980) (refusing to reaffirm Frye).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Kimball
D. Me. · 1983 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare United States v. DiRe, 332 U.S. 581 , 68 S.Ct. 222 , 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948), and United States v. Barber, 557 F.2d 628, 630-32 (8th Cir.1977), with United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164, 1171 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 , 100 S.Ct. 2161 , 64 L.Ed.2d 793 (1980).
Lehman Brothers Inc.
v.
Lilly and State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio Pension Fund v. Lilly
No. 79-1470; No. 79-1471.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 12, 1980.
446 U.S. 939
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 57%

C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied. Reported below: 608 F. 2d 55.