discussed Cited "see" Canterbury Riding Condominium v. Chesapeake Investors, Inc. See Rothenberg v. Security Management Co., 617 F.2d 1149, 1150 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 954 , 101 S.Ct. 359 , 66 L.Ed.2d 218 ; Gumer v. Shearson, Hamill & Co., 516 F.2d 283 (2d Cir.1974); Schwartz v. Compagnie Gen.

cited Cited "see" Consultants & Designers, Inc. v. Butler Service Group, Inc. See Rothenberg v. Security Management Co., 617 F.2d 1149, 1150 (5th Cir.), rehearing denied, 623 F.2d 711 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 954 , 101 S.Ct. 359 , 66 L.Ed.2d 218 (1980).

cited Cited "see" Consultants & Designers, Inc., Cross-Appellees v. Butler Service Group, Inc., a Corporation, Cross-Appellant. Consultants & Designers, Inc., Etc. v. Butler Service Group, Inc., a Corporation, Butler Service Group, Inc., a Corporation v. Consultants & Designers, Inc., Etc. See Rothenberg v. Security Management Co., 617 F.2d 1149, 1150 (5th Cir.), rehearing denied, 623 F.2d 711 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 954 , 101 S.Ct. 359 , 66 L.Ed.2d 218 (1980).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Habbena It is clear, however, that “[w]hen a logical nexus exists between seized but unnamed *457 items and those items listed in the warrant, the unnamed items are admissible.” United States v. Gentry, 642 F.2d 385, 387 (10th Cir.1981); see also United States v. Williams, 623 F.2d 535 (8th Cir.) cert. denied 449 U.S. 954 , 101 S.Ct. 359 , 66 L.Ed.2d 218 (1980).