green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
8.7 score
“if there is some justification for concentrating a surveillance on a particular place, as opposed to random investigation to discover criminal activity, that factor is weighed in the balance and contributes to justification for the surveillance.”
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation. Adams Extract Co., Inc. v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc.
federal courts possess the inherent power to enforce settlements entered into in settlement of litigation
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. John D. Marbury and Louis E. Doherty, Jr.
if there is some justification for concentrating a surveillance on a particular place, as opposed to random investigation to discover criminal activity, that factor is weighed in the balance and contributes to justification for the surveillance.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Walker
See United States v. Allen, 675 F.2d 1373, 1381-82 (9th Cir. 1980) (observation using ordinary binoculars does not constitute a Fourth Amendment “search”), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981). *819 In United States v. Ellison, 462 F.3d 557 (6th Cir.2006), 3 the Court faced an assertion that running a license plate number through the LEIN system constituted a Fourth Amendment search.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gaston v. City of Toledo
See United States v. Allen, 675 F.2d 1373 , 1382 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981) (possibility of destruction of drugs plus other significant facts); cf. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 , 83 S.Ct. 1623 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963) (upheld search when officers suspected drugs could easily be destroyed and that Ker may have been expecting police as they had chased him earlier in the day).” In the leading case of People v. Gastelo (1967), 67 Cal.2d 586, 588 , 63 Cal.Rptr. 10, 12 , 432 P.2d 706, 708 , the court specifically rejected the “blanket rule…
discussed
Cited "see"
Arvil Hall v. Jon Shipley, Don Boles, Phillip Nall, and Sgt. Jack Mansfield
See United States v. Allen, 675 F.2d 1373, 1382 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981) (possibility of destruction of drugs plus other significant facts); cf. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 , 83 S.Ct. 1623 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963) (upheld search when officers suspected drugs could easily be destroyed and that Ker may have been expecting police as they had chased him earlier in the day).
cited
Cited "see"
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Selph
See Lee v. Hunt, 410 F.Supp. 329, 333 (D.La.1976), aff'd, 631 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, Hunt v. Hunt, 454 U.S. 834 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Daniel Richard Esparza
(2×)
See United States v. Allen, 675 F.2d 1373, 1384 (9th Cir.1980) (alleged participants in marijuana conspiracy had been paid $10,000 for a few hours of work moving heavy containers), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981); see also United States v. Humphrey, 759 F.2d 743, 750-51 (9th Cir.1985) (defendants present on boat which reeked of marijuana), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 917 , 107 S.Ct. 1371 , 94 L.Ed.2d 686 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Duncan v. G.E.W., Inc.
See Lee v. Hunt, 631 F.2d 1171, 1175-1176 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 834 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981) (court, following Restatement, applied law of Texas even though some of the property was located in Louisiana).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Broadhurst
See United States v. Allen, 675 F.2d 1373, 1379, 1380 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Broadhurst
See United States v. Allen, 675 F.2d 1373, 1379, 1380 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Palmer Barge Line, Inc. v. Southern Petroleum Trading Co., Ltd.
See Lee v. Hunt, 631 F.2d 1171, 1178 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 834 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981) (applying Texas law); Tower Contracting Co., Inc. of Texas v. Burden Brothers, Inc., 482 S.W.2d 330, 335 (Tex.Civ.App.Dallas 1972, writ ref. n.r.e.); Sanders v. Republic National Bank of Dallas, 389 S.W.2d 551, 554 (Tex.Civ.App. - Tyler 1965, no writ). 4 The determination of whether a party’s will has been overcome is a question of fact which must be decided according to the totality of circumstances in a given case.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gamewell Manufacturing, Inc., a Corporation v. Hvac Supply, Inc., and Aeronca, Inc.
(2×)
See Lee v. Hunt, 631 F.2d 1171, 1173-74 (5th Cir.1980), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 834 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981); Hageman v. Signal L.P.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Barr
See United States v. Allen, 633 F.2d 1282, 1290-91 (9th Cir. 1980), modified on other grounds, 675 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 133 (1981); People v. Vermouth, 116 Cal.Rptr. 675 (Ct.App. 1974); State v. Holbron, 648 P.2d 194, 197 (Hawaii 1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Dow Chemical Co. v. US, by and Through Gorsuch
See United States v. Allen, 633 F.2d 1282, 1289 (CA 9, 1980), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jules Saint Prix, Glenn H. Hutchison, John Bennett, James T. Blakley and James R. Blakley
See United States v. Allen, 633 F.2d 1282 , 1291 *1083 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Guerrero-Guerrero
Yet, Beltran articulates the important point that, as a matter of “reason and common sense,” a jury may infer that conspirators engaged in conduct which, by its nature is kept a secret from outsiders, would reasonably not allow the presence of innocent bystanders in their midst while conducting a lengthy, illegal operation. 761 F.2d at 6 (characterizing holding of Smith, supra); see also United States v. Humphrey, 759 F.2d 743, 751 (9th Cir.1985) (“[Gjiven the scale of the undertaking and the necessity for secrecy, ‘no one would have been admitted to the enterprise who was not to be tr…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hector Mario Guerrero-Guerrero, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Diafanor Mosquera, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Jesus Idelfonso-Ortiz, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Juan De Dios Cabeza-Mejia, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Orlando Porras-Flores, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Dunoy Torres-Paternina, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Arnulfo Valencia-Aspirilla, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Felix Chica-Castano, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Cresenciano Vazquez-Consuegra, United States v. Jane Doe, A/K/A Julie Guerrero-Soto, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Rafael Perez, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Silvio Ferrin-Molineros, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Heriberto Enrique Mendibil-Manjarrez, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Juan Alejandro-Sisa
Yet, Beltran articulates the important point that, as a matter of "reason and common sense," a jury may infer that 23 conspirators engaged in conduct which, by its nature is kept a secret from outsiders, would reasonably not allow the presence of innocent bystanders in their midst while conducting a lengthy, illegal operation. 24 761 F.2d at 6 (characterizing holding of Smith, supra); see also United States v. Humphrey, 759 F.2d 743, 751 (9th Cir.1985) ("[G]iven the scale of the undertaking and the necessity for secrecy, 'no one would have been admitted to the enterprise who was not to be trus…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Village of Kaktovik v. James G. Watt, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, North Slope Borough v. James G. Watt, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, National Wildlife Federation v. James G. Watt, in His Official Capacity as Secretary, U. S. Department of the Interior, Amoco Production Company, Intervenor-Defendant
See, e.g., Lee v. Hunt, 631 F.2d 1171, 1177-78 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 834 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 153 This argument is also inconsistent with the government's theory on appeal that settlement negotiations aborted or collapsed.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Village of Kaktovik v. Watt
See, e.g., Lee v. Hunt, 631 F.2d 1171, 1177-78 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 834 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 153.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Whitt
v.
Pennsylvania
v.
Pennsylvania
No. 80-2123.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 5, 1981.
Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (2)
Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.