Torres-Valencia v. United States, 464 U.S. 44 (1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Torres-Valencia v. United States, 464 U.S. 44 (1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: O.S.C. Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc. (cacd, 1985-01-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) O.S.C. Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc. (4×) also: Cited "see"
C.D. Cal. · 1985 · confidence medium
Monsanto, 104 S.Ct. at 1471.
cited Cited "see" C & W Construction Co. v. Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 745
D. Haw. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Filco v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., 709 F.2d 1257, 1266 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 464 U.S. 956 , 104 S.Ct. 385 , 78 L.Ed.2d 331 (1983).
discussed Cited "see" The Jeanery, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, and Rock Bottom Jean Co., Inc., an Oregon Corporation v. James Jeans, Inc., a Washington Corporation (2×)
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Filco v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., 709 F.2d 1257, 1265 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 464 U.S. 956 , 104 S.Ct. 385 , 78 L.Ed.2d 331 (1983); Sweeney, 637 F.2d at 115-16 .
discussed Cited "see" Abelardo Yatco Guinto v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183 , 104 S.Ct. 584, 589-90 , 78 L.Ed.2d 40 (1984). 2 Guinto also claims that any statutory exclusion of crewmen from eligibility for discretionary relief violates the Equal Protection Clause.
discussed Cited "see" Moffat v. Lane Co., Inc.
D. Mass. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Filco v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., 709 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 385 , 78 L.Ed.2d 331 (1983); Bruce Drug, Inc. v. Hollister, Inc., 688 F.2d 853 (1st Cir.1982); Davis-Watkins Co. v. Service Merchandise, 686 F.2d 1190 (6th Cir.1982); H.L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." James Earle v. Robert Benoit
1st Cir. · 1988 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Filco v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., 709 F.2d 1257, 1267 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 956 , 104 S.Ct. 385 , 78 L.Ed.2d 331 (1983); Oreck Corp. v. Whirlpool Corp., 639 F.2d 75, 80-81 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1083 , 102 S.Ct. 639 , 70 L.Ed.2d 618 (1981); SEC v. Tome, 638 F.Supp. 629, 633 (S.D.N.Y.1986).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Securities & Exchange Commission v. Tome
S.D.N.Y. · 1986 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Rule 1101(b), Fed.R.Evid.; see e.g., Filco v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., 709 F.2d 1257, 1267 (9th Cir.) (discussing coconspirator exclusion in a civil case), cert. dismissed, 464 U.S. 956 , 104 S.Ct. 385 , 78 L.Ed.2d 331 (1983); Oreck Corp. v. Whirlpool Corp., 639 F.2d 75, 80-81 (2d Cir.1980) (same), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1083 , 102 S.Ct. 639 , 70 L.Ed.2d 618 (1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines
E.D. Cal. · 1985 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Filco v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., 709 F.2d 1257, 1266 (9th Cir.) (vertical price fixing), cert. denied, _ U.S. _, 104 S.Ct. 385 , 78 L.Ed.2d 331 (1983); Esco Corp. v. United States, 340 F.2d 1000, 1008 (9th Cir.1965) (citing United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 , 68 S.Ct. 915 , 92 L.Ed. 1260 (1948)).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Texas v. Mead (3×)
SCOTUS · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
J., joined by White, Blackmun, and Rehnquist, JJ., dissenting), 3 and since Jus tice Rehnquist, by not discussing the question that is presented, apparently agrees that it does not merit review, see, e. g., United States v. Johnston, 268 U. S. 220, 227 (1925) (“We do not grant a certiorari to review evidence and discuss specific facts”); see also Torres-Valencia v. United States, 464 U. S. 44 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting), I simply note that the Court’s decision to deny the petition for a writ of certiorari in this case is demonstrably consistent with the principles which inform our…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Luis Torres-Valencia
v.
United States
82-6848.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 7, 1983.
464 U.S. 44
Rehnquist, O'Connor.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

PER CURIAM.

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

In its brief opposing the petition for certiorari, the Government concedes that the District Court erroneously refused to give petitioner’s character evidence instruction to the jury, but argues that the error was harmless. The Government’s concession of error, as well as its harmless-error argument, should be presented to the Court of Appeals in the first instance. The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the Government’s concession of error.

It is so ordered.

Dissent

Justice Rehnquist, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice O’Connor join,

dissenting.

This Court can only deal with a certain number of cases on the merits in any given Term, and therefore some judgment must attend the process of selection. Summary disposition is of course appropriate where a lower court has demonstrably misapplied our cases in a manner which has led to an incorrect result. Here, however, the Court chooses to summarily vacate a judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming[*45] petitioner’s conviction on the ground that the Government concedes that the District Court improperly failed to give an instruction tendered by petitioner. It is also conceded that petitioner fully argued to the jury his theory of the case, notwithstanding the District Court’s refusal to give his proffered instruction.

I had thought the days of parsing a trial record to find isolated instructional errors in a charge to the jury were long gone. Title 28 U. S. C. §2111 provides:

“On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”

I am confident that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in deciding this case was well aware of this provision— indeed, perhaps better aware of it than is this Court.