green
Positive treatment
8.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Jandak v. Village of Brookfield
Kratz v. Kratz, 477 F.Supp. 463 (E.D.Pa.1979); United States v. Banks, 374 F.Supp. 321 (D.S.D.1974); but see United States v. Paul, 614 F.2d 115 (6th Cir.) (Phillips, J., concurring), cert. den. 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 , 64 L.Ed.2d 796 (1980). 6 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Rollins
(2×)
See United States v. Paul, 614 F.2d 115, 116 (6th Cir.) ("[J]ail officials are free to intercept conversations between a prisoner and a visitor."), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. *339 2165, 64 L.Ed.2d 796 (1980); see also Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139, 143 , 82 S.Ct. 1218 , 8 L.Ed.2d 384 (1962) ("[T]o say that a public jail is the equivalent of a man's `house' or that it is a place where he can claim constitutional immunity from search or seizure ... is at best a novel argument....
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Shaw
See State v. Heitman, 589 S.W.2d 249, 254 (Mo. banc 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2164 , 64 L.Ed.2d 795 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Braxton
See State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86, 98 , 257 S.E.2d 551, 559 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 64 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Arias v. Mutual Central Alarm Services, Inc.
Accord, United States v. Paul, 614 F.2d 115, 117 (6th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 , 64 L.Ed.2d 796 (1980); United States v. Peekes, 879 F.2d 1562, 1565-66 (7th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Severn
See State v. Reynolds, 298 N.C. 380, 397 , 259 S.E.2d 843, 853 (1979) (before plea negotiations are finalized defendant must give notice to district attorney and trial court that he intends to appeal denial of motion to suppress), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 64 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kalyvas
See United States v. Feekes, 879 F.2d 1562 , 1565 - 14 - (7th Cir. 1989), United States v. Amen, 831 F.2d 373, 379 (2nd Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1021 (1988), and United States v. Paul, 614 F.2d 115 (6th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 (1980).4 Dass next argues that the district court erred in admitting into evidence testimony concerning “other transactions” under Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Alford
See State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86 , 257 S.E.2d 551 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 64 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Simpson
(2×)
See State v. Reynolds, 298 N.C. 380 , 259 S.E. 2d 843 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 64 L.Ed. 2d 795 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Robbins
(2×)
See State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86 , 257 S.E. 2d 551 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 64 L.Ed. 2d 796 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lee v. Carlson
See United States v. Paul, 614 F.2d 115, 117 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 , 64 L.Ed.2d 796 (1980); Crooker v. U.S. Department of Justice, 497 F.Supp. 500, 503 (D.Conn.1980); cf. Watkins v. L.M.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jo Ann Harrelson, Charles Voyed Harrelson and Elizabeth Nichols Chagra
See United States v. Paul, 614 F.2d 115, 117-20 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 , 64 L.Ed.2d 796 (1980) (Phillips, J., concurring).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Guinan
See State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86 , 257 S.E.2d 551, 563 (1979), cert, denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 , 64 L.Ed.2d 796 (1980) (bifurcated system); Collins v. State, 261 Ark. 195 , 548 S.W.2d 106, 120 , cert, denied, 434 U.S. 878 , 98 S.Ct. 231 , 54 L.Ed.2d 158 (1977) (bifurcated system).
cited
Cited "see"
VANCE TRUCKING CO., INC. v. Phillips
See State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86 , 257 S.E. 2d 551 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 , 64 L.Ed. 2d 796 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Kirkley
(2×)
In State v. Pinch, 306 N.C. 1, 9 , 292 S.E.2d 203, 213 (1982), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 474 , 74 L.Ed.2d 622 (1982), we stated: The applicable constitutional standard permits the excuse of a potential juror for cause if it is established that he `would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at the trial of the case....' Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 522 at n. 21, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 1777 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776, 785 (1968); see State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86 , 257 S.E.2d 551 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. …
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Green
(2×)
See State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86, 109 , 257 S.E. 2d 551, 565 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 , 64 L.Ed. 2d 796 (1980); State v. Bailey, 49 N.C.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Alston
See State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86 , 257 S.E. 2d 551 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 64 L.Ed. 2d 796 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 (1980).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Pinch
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The applicable constitutional standard permits the excuse of a potential juror for cause if it is established that he “would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at the trial of the case. . . .” Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 522 at n. 21, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 1777 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 776, 785 (1968); see State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86 , 257 S.E. 2d 551 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 , 64 L.Ed. 2d 796 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Williams
(2×)
The applicable constitutional standard permits the excuse of a potential juror for cause if it is established that he ‘would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at the trial of the case . . . .’ Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 522 at n. 21, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 1777 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 776, 785 (1968); see State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86 , 257 S.E. 2d 551 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 , 64 L.Ed. 2d 796 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Broomfield
See State v. Heitman, 589 S.W.2d 249, 255-56 (Mo. banc 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2164 , 64 L.Ed.2d 795 (1980); State v. Roland, 619 S.W.2d 771, 777 (Mo. App. 1981) (defendant may not complain of error in his favor).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Williams
Accord, State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86 , 257 S.E. 2d 551 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 64 L.Ed. 2d 796 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 (1980); State v. Barfield, supra; State v. May, supra; State v. Williams, 292 N.C. 391 , 233 S.E. 2d 507 (1977).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Locklear
Ed. 2d 879 (1996); see also State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86, 98 , 257 S.E.2d 551, 559 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 64 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Simmons v. Beinvenu
See also Brown v. Schiff, 614 F.2d 237, 238-39 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Howard VAN POYCK, Defendant-Appellant
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Paul, 614 F.2d 115, 117 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 , 64 L.Ed.2d 796 (1980); United States v. Feekes, 879 F.2d 1562, 1565-66 (7th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Gagan v. Leopold
See also Brown v. Schiff, 614 F.2d 237, 238 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Von Villas
(2×)
In addition to Donaldson , in which the court expressly pointed out that Lanza had never been repudiated by the United States Supreme Court or other federal courts (Donaldson v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.3d at pp. 28-30; see Ahmad A. v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 528, 535 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 747 ]; People v. Elwood (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1365, 1370 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 585 ]; see also, United States v. Paul (6th Cir. 1980) 614 F.2d 115, 116 [61 A.L.R.Fed. 816], cert, den., 446 U.S. 941 [ 64 L.Ed.2d 796 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 ]; United States v. Hearst (9th Cir. 1977) 563 F.2d 1331, 1345 , cert, …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Payne
See, e.g., State v. Reynolds, 298 N.C. 380, 401 , 259 S.E.2d 843, 855 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 64 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kojo Sababu, Jaime Delgado, and Dora Garcia
United States v. Feekes, 879 F.2d 1562, 1565 (7th Cir.1989); See also United States *1329 v. Paul, 614 F.2d 115, 117 (6th Cir.) cert. denied 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 , 64 L.Ed.2d 796 (1980); United States v. Vasta, 649 F.Supp. 974, 989 (S.D.N.Y.1986); Crooker v. United States Dept. of Justice, 497 F.Supp. 500, 503 (D.Conn.1980).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Vasta
News 2178; see also United States v. Paul, 614 F.2d 115, 117-20 (6th Cir.) (Phillips, J., concurring in the result), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 , 64 L.Ed.2d 796 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ca2 1985
Compare Campiti v. Walonis, 611 F.2d 387 (1st Cir.1979) (monitoring inmates' telephone calls was not within ordinary course of state correctional institute's business) with United States v. Paul, 614 F.2d 115 (6th Cir.1980) (where inmates had notice of monitoring of telephone messages, monitoring was within ordinary course of correctional officer's duties), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 , 64 L.Ed.2d 796 . 28 We observe that Bumgarner's criminal trial court found that there was no proof that the state had obtained any evidence by illegal surveillance of Bumgarner, Spears v. State,…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bumgarner v. Bloodworth
Compare Campiti v. Walonis, 611 F.2d 387 (1st Cir.1979) (monitoring inmates’ telephone calls was not within ordinary course of state correctional institute’s business) with United States v. Paul, 614 F.2d 115 (6th Cir.) (where inmates had' notice of monitoring of telephone messages, monitoring was within ordinary course of correctional officer’s duties), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 , 64 L.Ed.2d 796 (1980).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Murvin
See also State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86 , 257 S.E. 2d 551 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
William David Hensley v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(2×)
See, e. g., Riley v. U. S. Industries/Federal Sheet Metal, Inc., 627 F.2d 455 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. granted, 446 U.S. 941 , 100 S.Ct. 2165 , 64 L.Ed.2d 796 (1981); Swinton v. Kelly, 554 F.2d 1075 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 820 , 97 S.Ct. 67 , 50 L.Ed.2d 81 (1976); Wheatley v. Adler, supra. 7 The Act provides that compensation shall be payable when an employee covered under the Act suffers an "injury," defined as "accidental injury ... arising out of and in the course of employment ...." 33 U.S.C. § 902 (2).
Brown
v.
Schiff
v.
Schiff
No. 79-6020.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 12, 1980.
Published
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.