green
Positive treatment
4.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Smith
See Gragg v. State, 429 So.2d 1204 (Fla.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 820 , 104 S.Ct. 83 , 78 L.Ed.2d 93 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Garcia v. State
See Gragg v. State, 429 So.2d 1204 (Fla.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 820 , 104 S.Ct. 83 , 78 L.Ed.2d 93 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tsafaroff v. Taylor (In re Taylor)
See Mesirow v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 703 F.2d 339, 345 (9th Cir.) (assuming without deciding that a client can appeal from an order imposing sanctions on his attorney), cert. denied 464 U.S. 820 , 104 S.Ct. 83 , 78 L.Ed.2d 93 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: Ezella M. Taylor, Debtor. Dina Tsafaroff Evelyn Simbas v. Ezella M. Taylor, Ezella M. Taylor v. Dina Tsafaroff Evelyn Simbas William Little, William Little v. Ezella M. Taylor David A. Gill, Trustee in Bankruptcy
See Mesirow v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 703 F.2d 339, 345 (9th Cir.) (assuming without deciding that a client can appeal from an order imposing sanctions on his attorney), cert. denied 464 U.S. 820 , 104 S.Ct. 83 , 78 L.Ed.2d 93 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Waller
See Kaushiva v. Hutter, 454 A.2d 1373 (D.C.), cert. denied, [ 464 U.S. 820 ], 104 S.Ct. 83 [ 78 L.Ed.2d 93 ] (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Premier Wine & Spirits of South Dakota Inc. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery
See Mesirow v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 703 F.2d 339, 344 (9th Cir.1983) cert. denied, 464 U.S. 820 , 104 S.Ct. 83 , 78 L.Ed.2d 93 (1983), [affirming summary judgment for defendant; declarations submitted in opposition to summary judgment motion which contradict prior deposition testimony raise only “sham issues” and “do not create a factual dispute sufficient to avoid summary judgment”]. 17.
discussed
Cited "see"
Eavenson, Auchmuty & Greenwald, a Pennsylvania Professional Corporation v. Michael Holtzman Individually and as Trustee for Gibson, N v. Gibson, n.v.: A Netherlands Antilles Corporation Jacques Trempont, Individually and as Trustee for Gibson, N v. Claude A. Antille, Individually and as a Managing Director of Gibson, N v. John Doe Representing All of the Parties in Interest of Gibson, N v. Christoffer Smeets, Individually and as Director of Curacao Corp. Co. N v. Eugene Bruinendael, Individually and as Director of Curacao Corp. Co. N v. Henricul De Rooid, Individually and as Director of Curacao Corp. Co. N v. Cornelius Lind, Individually and as Director of Curacao Corp. Co. N v. V. Edward H. Greenwald, Sr., Edward H. Greenwald, Jr., William Sumner Scott, and Lebon Walker, Third-Party Appeal of William Sumner Scott
See infra at pp. 541-544 7 The Ninth Circuit has adopted a broad rule under which "[a]n order imposing a sanction upon counsel, a nonparty in the underlying action, is final and appealable by the person sanctioned, when the sanction is imposed." Optyl Eyewear Fashion International Corp. v. Style Companies, 760 F.2d 1045 , 1047 n. 1 (9th Cir.1985) (citing Mesirow v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 703 F.2d 339, 345 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 820 , 104 S.Ct. 83 , 78 L.Ed.2d 93 (1983)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lacey
See, e.g. , Cohn , 160 P.3d at 342-43 (citing, inter alia , People v. Carroll , 140 Cal. App. 3d 135 , 189 Cal.Rptr. 327 , cert. den. , 464 U.S. 820 , 104 S.Ct. 83 , 78 L.Ed.2d 93 (1983) ; United States v. Mack , 362 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2004) ; United States v. Pina , 844 F.2d 1 , 15 (1st Cir. 1988) ("Removal of a defendant from the courtroom is more difficult when the defendant is acting pro se .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ryko Manufacturing Co. v. Eden Services, a Maryland Partnership, Fred J. Eden, Jr. And J. Erik Eden, Eden Services, Fred J. Eden, Jr. And J. Erik Eden v. Ryko Manufacturing Co., Ryko Manufacturing Co. v. Eden Services, a Maryland Partnership, Fred J. Eden and J. Erik Eden, Eden Services, Fred J. Eden, Jr. And J. Erik Eden v. Ryko Manufacturing Co.
See also Mesirow v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 703 F.2d 339, 342-43 (9th Cir.) (no resale price maintenance where defendant bore "significantly greater risks" in sales of goods through plaintiff distributors), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 820 , 104 S.Ct. 83 , 78 L.Ed.2d 93 (1983). 27 This analysis is limited to examining the distributor's role vis-a-vis transactions allegedly involving an antitrust violation.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ryko Manufacturing Co. v. Eden Services
See also Mesirow v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 703 F.2d 339, 342-43 (9th Cir.) (no resale price maintenance where defendant bore “significantly greater risks” in sales of goods through plaintiff distributors), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 820 , 104 S.Ct. 83 , 78 L.Ed.2d 93 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nacher v. State
We must with realism and rationality ... `examine the record of a prior proceeding, taking into account the pleadings, evidence, charge, and other relevant matter, and conclude whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration.' 397 U.S. at 444 , 90 S.Ct. at 1194 (quoting Mayers & Yarbrough, Bis Vexari: New Trials and Successive Prosecutions, 74 Harv.L.Rev. 1, 38-39 (1960)); see also Gragg v. State, 429 So.2d 1204, 1206 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 83 , 78 L.Ed.2d 93 (1983); Alvo…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eisenbeiss
v.
Jarrell
v.
Jarrell
No. 82-1929.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 1983.
Published
Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.