green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
11.3 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“[W]e do not suggest that an attorney-client privilege is lost by the mere fact that the information communicated is otherwise available to the public. The privilege attaches not to the information but to the communication of the information.”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
"[T]he ICC regulations ... make a carrier liable to the public for negligent acts of the vehicle's driver...."
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“[T]he ICC regulations ... make a carrier liable to the public for negligent acts of the vehicle’s driver_”
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings 89-10 (Mia)
e do not suggest that an attorney-client privilege is lost by the mere fact that the information communicated is otherwise available to the public. the privilege attaches not to the information but to the communication of the information.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Millers National Insurance Company v. Axel's Express, Inc.
he icc regulations ... make a carrier liable to the public for negligent acts of the vehicle's driver....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Millers National Insurance v. Axel's Express, Inc.
he icc regulations ... make a carrier liable to the public for negligent acts of the vehicle's driver_
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Stewart
In any event, the contention of defendant that he was denied the right to be tried by a jury of his peers is without merit, inasmuch as he failed to meet his initial burden of establishing “a prima facie case of the systematic exclusion of blacks from the jury panel” (Whitfield, 152 AD2d at 999 ; see People v Guzman, 60 NY2d 403, 409 [1983], cert denied 466 US 951 [1984]; People v Jordan, 261 AD2d 947 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1003 [1999]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Vasquez
Defendant bore the burden of showing “that a substantial and identifiable segment of the community was not included in the jury pool based on a systematic exclusion of that group” (People v Williams, 256 AD2d 661, 663 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 981 [1999]; see People v Guzman, 60 NY2d 403, 410-411 [1983], cert denied 466 US 951 [1984]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Ortiz
Defendant’s motion papers failed to set forth sufficient facts substantiating the contention that a substantial and identifiable segment of the community was not included in the jury pool as a result of intentional discrimination or a systematic exclusion of that group (see People v Williams, 256 AD2d 661, 663 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 981 [1999]; Davidson, 251 AD2d 1036 [1998]; McFadden, 244 AD2d at 889 , lv denied 97 NY2d 757 [2002]; see generally People v Guzman, 60 NY2d 403, 410-411 [1983], cert denied 466 US 951 [1984]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Blanchard
Defendant, who bore the burden of demonstrating “that a substantial and identifiable segment of the community was not included in the jury pool based on a systematic exclusion of that group” (People v Williams, 256 AD2d 661, 663 , lv denied 93 NY2d 981 ; see, People v Guzman, 60 NY2d 403, 409 , cert denied 466 US 951 ), offered insufficient proof demonstrating “that the alleged underrepresentation was caused by intentional discrimination or that the jurors had been systematically excluded from the jury pool” (People v Williams, supra, at 663).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bryant v. Food Lion, Inc.
(2×)
See Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 539 (1984) (finding comprehensive statistical data far more persuasive indicia of company-wide practices than the isolated anecdotes offered by plaintiffs.) 42 .
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Grant
We note that, following defendant’s trial, Judiciary Law § 506 was amended to further the interest of both the defendant and the State in ensuring that the jury pool is drawn "from a fair cross-section of the community” (Judiciary Law § 500; see, People v Guzman, 60 NY2d 403 , cert denied 466 US 951 ; Marcus v Levin, 198 AD2d 214 , appeal dismissed 83 NY2d 847 , cert denied 513 US 860 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Caperton
(2×)
See Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326, 332 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 539 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. 5300 Columbia Pike Corp.
(2×)
See Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326 , 336 n. 18 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 539 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
ca4 1995
See Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326, 338 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Stier v. United States
See Fiumara v. United States, 727 F.2d 209 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Austin Ins. Agency, Inc.
See Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326, 332 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 (1984) 3 On the question of proximate cause, Doctors' representatives testified that they could not remember soliciting Jarrell's opinion.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Upton
See United States v. Cunningham, 723 F.2d 217, 229 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Comair Rotron, Inc. v. Minebea Co.
Knogo Corp. v. United States, 213 U.S.P.Q. 936 , 940 (Ct.Cl.1980); see United States v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d 1064 , 1073 n. 8 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jose Pagan Campino v. United States
See Fiumara v. United States, 727 F.2d 209 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984) (finding, inter alia, that failure to move to suppress evidence prior to trial as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(f) constituted a procedural bar to a § 2255 motion unless defendant could show cause and prejudice); Indiviglio v. United States, 612 F.2d 624 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 933 , 100 S.Ct. 1326 , 63 L.Ed.2d 768 (1980); Foreman v. United States, 1991 WL 8406 , 1991 U.S. Dist.
discussed
Cited "see"
Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
(2×)
See Beverly Bank v. Bd. of Review (1983), 117 Ill.App.3d 656 , 72 Ill.Dec. 791 , 453 N.E.2d 96 , cert. denied, (1984), 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2153 , 80 L.Ed.2d 539 ; Allison v. Bd. of County Comm'rs (1987), 241 Kan. 266 , 737 P.2d 6 ; Burrell v. Mississippi State Tax Comm'n (1988), Miss., 536 So.2d 848 ; Bung's Bar & Grille, Inc. v. Township Council (1985), 206 N.J.Super. 432 , 502 A.2d 1198 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Urbana
See United States v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d 1064, 1075 (2d Cir.1982) (before disqualifying counsel, district court must first pass on the admissibility of evidence implicating counsel), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
William C. Brennan v. United States
See Fiumara v. United States, 727 F.2d 209, 213-14 (2d Cir.) (applying Frady primarily to failure to raise nonconstitutional and nonjurisdictional objection at trial but also noting failure to raise issue on appeal), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gary Washington and Jeffrey Shepard
See United States v. *353 Cunningham, 723 F.2d 217, 227 (2d Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984); United States v. Bonacorsa, 528 F.2d 1218, 1221-22 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 935 , 96 S.Ct. 2647 , 49 L.Ed.2d 386 (1976); United States v. Goldstein, 168 F.2d 666, 671-72 (2d Cir.1948).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Perez
See United States v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d 1064 (2nd Cir.1982), cert. den. 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
O'Neill v. Krzeminski
See United States v. Cunningham, 723 F.2d 217 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984); United States v. Mowad, 641 F.2d 1067 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 817 , 102 S.Ct. 94 , 70 L.Ed.2d 86 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
O'Neill v. Krzeminski
See United States v. Cunningham, 723 F.2d 217 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984); United States v. Mowad, 641 F.2d 1067 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 817 , 102 S.Ct. 94 , 70 L.Ed.2d 86 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Simmons v. Marsh
(2×)
See Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326, 338 (4th Cir. 1983) (inference of discriminatory intent from hiring data is not warranted in determining whether discriminatory intent was the cause of disparity in promotions data where there was no evidence that supervisory personnel in hiring and promotion contexts were the same), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 539 (1984). 26 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee
(2×)
See Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326 , 336 n. 17 (4th Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 539 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca9 1987
(2×)
See Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326 , 336 n. 17 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 539 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Murad Nersesian
See United States v. Cunningham, 723 F.2d 217, 230 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Turoff
See United States v. Cunningham, 723 F.2d 217, 230 (2d Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Anwar v. United States
See United States v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d 1064 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Vasta
United States v. Wilkinson, 754 F.2d 1427, 1435 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1019 , 105 S.Ct. 3482 , 87 L.Ed.2d 617 (1985); accord United States v. Cunningham, 723 F.2d 217, 230 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Autry v. North Carolina Department of Human Resources
(2×)
See Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326, 338 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 539 (1984); McCann v. Delaware River Port Authority, 548 F.Supp. 1206, 1214 (E.D.Penn.1982) (Title VII not violated when foreman who made racial slurs had no input into employment decision affecting plaintiff), aff'd, 725 F.2d 669 (3rd Cir.1983). (8) Without direct or indirect evidence of discrimination, the Plaintiff must resort to the McDonnell Douglas proof scheme to establish a prima facie case.
cited
Cited "see"
Warren v. Halstead Industries, Inc.
See Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326 , 336 n. 20 (4th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, — U.S. ---, 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 539 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. O'Connor
See also Fiumara v. United States, 727 F.2d 209, 212 (2d Cir.) (“A trial counsel worthy of the name should be capable of subordinating his personal predilections to his professional duty.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert, denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Simms v. LaClair
To establish a prima facie case for violation of the fair cross-section requirement under the Sixth Amendment, “a defendant must prove that: (1) a group qualifying as ‘distinctive; (2) is not fairly and reasonably represented in jury venires, and (3) systematic exclusion’ in the jury selection process accounts for the underrepresentation.” Smith, 130 S.Ct. at 1392 (citing Duren, 439 U.S. at 364 , 99 S.Ct. 664 ); see also People v. Guzman, 60 N.Y.2d 403, 410 , 469 N.Y.S.2d 916 , 457 N.E.2d 1143 (N.Y.1983) (per curiam) (“In order to establish a violation of due process based on the abs…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Parker v. Phillips
To establish a prima facie case for violation of the fair cross-section requirement under the Sixth Amendment, “a defendant must prove that: (1) a group qualifying as ‘distinctive; (2) is not fairly and reasonably represented in jury venires, and (3) ‘systematic exclusion’ in the jury selection process accounts for the underrepresentation.” Smith, 130 S.Ct. at 1392 (citing Duren, 439 U.S. at 364 , 99 S.Ct. 664 ); see also People v. Guzman, 60 N.Y.2d 403, 410 , 469 N.Y.S.2d 916 , 457 N.E.2d 1143 (N.Y.1983) (per curiam) (“In order to establish a violation of due process based on the …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shabbir v. Pakistan International Airlines
Motions for disqualification, such as the one presently pending before this Court, require the Court to “preserve a balance, delicate though it may be, between an individual’s right to his own freely chosen counsel and the need to maintain the highest ethical standards of professional responsibility.” Emle Indus., Inc. v. Patentex, Inc., 478 F.2d 562 , 564-65 (2d Cir.1973); see also United States v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d 1064, 1071 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bryson v. Fluor Corp.
(2×)
See, e.g., Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326 , 334—35 (4th Cir.1983) (Title VII), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 539 (1984); Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U.S. 750 , 758 n. 6, 99 S.Ct. 2066 , 2073 n. 6, 60 L.Ed.2d 609 (1979) (ADEA).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
cadc 1993
See, e.g., United States v. Cunningham, 723 F.2d 217, 228-29 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984) 51 Defendants emphasize the instruction that the jury could convict if it found "that the Government has established beyond a reasonable doubt that any one of these items was falsely reported on the return." Tr. 4533 52 Defendants also argue that this omission, and other errors asserted in connection with the section 1001 convictions, affect the conspiracy convictions.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Woolfolk
Defendant provided no facts tending to demonstrate the existence of a systematic exclusion of minorities or that black persons have been underrepresented on Broome County juries for a significant period of time (see, People v Tucker, 115 AD2d 175 , lv denied 67 NY2d 766 ; see also, People v Guzman, 60 NY2d 403 , cert denied 466 US 951 ).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Dale
See, e.g., United States v. Cunningham, 723 F.2d 217, 228-29 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Michalek
See, e.g., Fiumara v. United States, 727 F.2d 209, 213 (2d Cir.) (failure to raise alleged illegality of wiretap in suppression motion waived the objection), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984); United States v. Hart, 729 F.2d 662, 665 (10th Cir.1984) (claim that confession was obtained in violation of Miranda was waived by failure to make motion to suppress prior to trial), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1161 , 105 S.Ct. 914 , 83 L.Ed.2d 927 (1985); United States v. Schwartz, 535 F.2d 160, 163 (2d Cir.1976) (failure to raise, in pretrial suppression motion, claim that …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kevin Camisa
See, e.g., United States v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d 1064, 1070 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Grey v. Henderson
See (N.Y.C.P.L. § 200.40[1]); People v. Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75 , 350 N.Y.S.2d 369 , 305 N.E.2d 461 , cert. denied, 416 U.S. 905 , 94 S.Ct. 1609 , 40 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974); see also United States v. Cunningham, 723 F.2d 217, 230 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984) (denial of severance “will be reversed only upon the appellant’s successfully assuming the heavy burden of showing that he suffered substantial prejudice due to joint trial”). *696 Grey's claim that he was denied the right to testify is meritless.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Charles E. Wagner, for Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. Reese H. Taylor, Jr., Chairman, Interstate Commerce Commission
(4×)
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177 , 94 S.Ct. 2140, 2152 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732, 748 (1974); see also Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326, 332-333 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 539 (1984) (court must be “concerned with the commonality (not the apparent merit) of the claims"); Kuck v. Berkey Photo, Inc., 81 F.R.D. 736, 739 (S.D.N.Y.1979) (”[o]nce plaintiffs have demonstrated ... a reasonable basis for crediting the assertion that aggrieved individuals do exist in the broader class they propose, then it is inappropriate for this…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Nunez
See also Fiumara v. United States, 727 F.2d 209 (2nd Cir.) cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984) (Defendant’s claim that a judge’s order for wire-tap did not comply with statutory requirements was neither jurisdictional nor constitutional in nature and did not constitute a fundamental defect which inherently resulted in a complete miscarraige of justice; thus, the claim was not cognizable under the statute governing the motions). b.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Clara Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust
(4×)
See also Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326, 334 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 539 (1984) (although claims of individual and class wide discriminatory termination overlapped on several important pieces of proof with claims of discrimination in promotions, the district court properly denied broad class certification because promotions claims raised significant issues of proof separate from those evidentiary issues implicated by the termination claims) 9 Contrary to the assertion of the dissent, this Court does not hold that the actual pro…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Coates v. Johnson & Johnson
(2×)
See, e.g., Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326 , 336 & n. 20 (4th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 539 (1984); Pegues v. Mississippi State Employment Service of the Mississippi Employment Security Commission, 699 F.2d 760, 765 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 482 , 78 L.Ed.2d 679 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Coates v. Johnson & Johnson
(2×)
See, e.g., Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326 , 336 & n. 20 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 539 (1984); Pegues v. Mississippi State Employment Service of the Mississippi Employment Security Commission, 699 F.2d 760, 765 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 482 , 78 L.Ed.2d 679 (1983).
Seatrain Lines, Inc.
v.
Carcich
v.
Carcich
No. 83-1448.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 23, 1984.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2) · Eleventh Circuit (1)
App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.