green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.7 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“Defenders I”
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Defenders of Wildlife, Inc. v. The Endangered Species Scientific Authority
defenders i
discussed
Cited "see"
Cosatime v. State
See Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.) (conflicts in evidence must be resolved in favor of a jury verdict), cert. granted, 454 U.S. 963 , 102 S.Ct. 502 , 70 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), aff'd, 457 U.S. 31 , 102 S.Ct. 2211 , 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); § 921.001(5), Fla.Stat. (1989) (sentence will be upheld where at least one factor justifies departure).
cited
Cited "see"
Carson v. State
See Queen v. State, 271 Ark. 929 , 612 S.W.2d 95 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 963 (1981); Lockett v. State, 271 Ark. 860 , 611 S.W.2d 500 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Saleh
See State v. Gomez, 101 Idaho 802, 807 (1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 963 (1981), citing 1 W.
cited
Cited "see"
Thompson v. State
See Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.), cert. granted, 454 U.S. 963 , 102 S.Ct. 502 , 70 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), aff'd, 457 U.S. 31 , 102 S.Ct. 2211 , 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Delmonaco
See also Note, The Informer’s Tip as Probable Cause for Search or Arrest, 54 CornellL.Rev. 958, 967 (1969).” (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Canieso, 470 F.2d 1224, 1231 (2d Cir. 1972); see State v. Gomez, 101 Idaho 802 , 623 P.2d 110 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 963 , 102 S. Ct. 503 , 70 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Brown
See United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 454 U.S. 963 , 102 S.Ct. 3440 , 73 L.Ed. 2d 1193 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert Rose, Sr., United States of America v. James Hill
See generally United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 647 F.2d 72 (9th Cir.), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 501 , 70 L.Ed.2d 377 ; United States v. Avila-Dominques, 610 F.2d 1266 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Calzada, 579 F.2d 1358 (7th Cir.) cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 920 , 99 S.Ct. 294 , 58 L.Ed.2d 266 (1978); United States v. Mendez-Rodriguez, 450 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1971).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Wright v. State
Id.; see also State v. Gomez, 623 P.2d 110, 116 (Idaho 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 963 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Wilson
United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109 , 85 S.Ct. 741, 746 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965); see also State v. Gomez, 101 Idaho 802 , 623 P.2d 110 (1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 963 , 102 S.Ct. 503 , 70 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); State v. Lindner, 100 Idaho 37 , 592 P.2d 852 (1979); State v. Oropeza, 97 Idaho 387 , 545 P.2d 475 (1976); State v. Gauna, 117 Idaho 83 , 785 P.2d 647 (Ct.App.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sholes
See also State v. Gomez, 101 Idaho 802 , 623 P.2d 110 (1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 963 , 102 S.Ct. 503 , 70 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); State v. Lindner, 100 Idaho 37 , 592 P.2d 852 (1979); State v. Oropeza, 97 Idaho 387 , 545 P.2d 475 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Johnson
They have failed, therefore, to provide the informant’s “basis of knowledge” for this information. “[C]onclusory statements without a recital of the underlying factual circumstances will not suffice [to establish probable cause.]” State v. Willey, 363 A.2d 739, 741 (Me. 1976); see also State v. Gomez, 101 Idaho 802, 806-807 , 623 P.2d 110 (1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 963 , 102 S. Ct. 503 , 70 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lynn Fredriksson
"The trial court has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing argument." United States v. DeLoach, 504 F.2d 185, 189 (D.C.Cir.1974); see also Defenders of Wildlife, Inc. v. Endangered Species Scientific Auth., 659 F.2d 168 , 182 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 963 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Thomas Crowder v. Russell E. Lash
Compare Murray v. City of Chicago, 634 F.2d 365, 367 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. granted, 454 U.S. 962 , 102 S.Ct. 501 , 70 L.Ed.2d 377 (1981) (immunity based on “good faith action under apparently valid authority is an affirmative defense which [defendant] must plead and prove”) and Chavis v. Rowe, 643 F.2d 1281, 1288 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 907 , 102 S.Ct. 415 , 70 L.Ed.2d 225 (1981) (defendants must plead and prove good faith before they are entitled to qualified immunity in a § 1983 action) with Johnson v. Miller, 680 F.2d 39, 42 (7th Cir. 1982) (absent allegation of knowing or …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ortiz v. Bank of America
Most of these courts have concluded that the particular plaintiff was not a member of a racial group distinct from “whites,” and because “whites” may not claim racial discrimination by other “whites,” they were attempting to allege national origin discrimination claims, which were held not cognizable under the statute. 17 See Hiduchenko v. Minneapolis Medical & Diagnostic Ctr., 467 F.Supp. 103, 106 (D.Minn.1979) (Holding that a plaintiff of Ukranian descent was not of a race other than Caucasian and therefore could not state a claim for racial discrimination under section 1981 agai…
United States
v.
Valenzuela-Bernal
v.
Valenzuela-Bernal
No. 81-450.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 2, 1981.
Published
Citer courts: D.C. Circuit (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.