green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
9.7 score
“there should be no injection of race into jury deliberations”
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 38 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Yoder v. T.E.L. Leasing, Inc. (In Re Suburban Motor Freight, Inc.)
But see Robinson v. Watts Detective Agency, Inc., 686 F.2d 729, 741-42 (1st Cir.1982), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 103 S.Ct. 728 , 74 L.Ed.2d 963 (1983) (the circuit court approved the rule awarding pre-judgment interest from the date of commencement of the action, but declined to award interest in a proceeding to recover a fraudulent conveyance under the Act [ 11 U.S.C. § 107 (d)(2)] because the property conveyed did not have a definite and ascertainable value.) Pre-judgment interest in both preference and fraudulent conveyance litigation accrues from the date of the demand on the defendan…
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Hunter
there should be no injection of race into jury deliberations
discussed
Cited "see"
Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Creative Development Co.
See Texas Farm Bureau v. United States, 725 F.2d 307, 311 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 778 , 83 L.Ed.2d 773 (1985)(tax case setting forth a number of factors, largely objective, that may be usefully considered in resolving debt-versus-equity controversies); Retirement Benefit Plan v. Standard Bindery, Co., 654 F.Supp. 770, 772-73 (E.D.Mich.1986)(applying traditional debt/equity factors to resolve debt/equity controversy in an MPPAA withdrawal liability case). .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A.
See United States v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 740 F.2d 817, 828 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 778 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985). 6 .In its earlier pleadings, American Express Bank also argued that by the time of the forfeiture it had dissipated the set off funds and, therefore, that the United States was barred from seeking substitute assets from a third party.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Weiss
See Wright v. United States, 122 F.2d 1048, 1050 n. 1 (2d Cir.1984) (holding that district court correctly overruled government’s contention that parolee did not fall within “in custody” requirement), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); United States v. Loschiavo, 531 F.2d 659, 662 (2d Cir.1976) (“[P]risoners on parole have been held to satisfy the ‘in custody’ requirement.”) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ibekwe
See Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); Chukwurah v. United States, 813 F.Supp. 161, 163-64 (E.D.N.Y.1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Maltby v. Winston
See Cameo Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Senn, 738 F.2d 836 , 842 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 106 S.Ct. 780 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985). 18 However, even if we were to hold that Mr. Maltby’s claims of error were properly before us, we would not reverse the jury verdict in favor of the Task Force on these grounds.
discussed
Cited "see"
Maltby v. Winston
See Cameo Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Senn, 738 F.2d 836 , 842 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 780 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985). 18 49 However, even if we were to hold that Mr. Maltby's claims of error were properly before us, we would not reverse the jury verdict in favor of the Task Force on these grounds.
discussed
Cited "see"
Leach v. Resolution Trust Corp.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Moore v. U.S. House of Representatives, 733 F.2d 946, 954 (D.C.Cir.1984) (noting that the doctrine of remedial discretion “permits the court to exercise judicial self-restraint in particular matters intruding upon a coordinate branch of government”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Accurate Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 285 , 109 S.Ct. 2463, 2470 , 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988); See Cameo Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Senn, *839 738 F.2d 836, 846 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 780 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Styskal
See, Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S. Ct. 779 , 83 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Julio Ernesto Arias-Santana
See Cameo Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Senn, 738 F.2d 836 , 844 (7th Cir.1984) (“justification for the missing witness instruction disminishes [sic] with the availability of the tools of discovery”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 780 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Wallach, Rusty Kent London, Eugene Robert Wallach, A/K/A \E. Robert (Bob) Wallach
(2×)
See Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048 , 1056 n. 8 (2d Cir.1984) (extent of prejudice that must be shown depends on what stage proceedings have reached), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Midcoast Aviation, Inc. v. General Electric Credit Corp.
(2×)
See Cameo Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Senn, 738 F.2d 836, 841 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 780 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985); Alloy Int’l Co. v. Hoover-NSK Bearing Co., 635 F.2d 1222, 1226 (7th Cir.1980); Fey v. Walston & Co., 493 F.2d 1036, 1048 (7th Cir.1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Noriega
See In re Grand Jury Proceedings Bank of Nova Scotia, 740 F.2d 817, 830-31 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 778 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985) (discussing the Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs).
cited
Cited "see"
Purdy v. Security Savings & Loan Ass'n
See Cameo Convalescent Center v. Senn, 738 F.2d 836 , 846 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 780 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Francis
This Court will not overturn legislative choices as to the relative weight accorded to different classes of acts within a statute proscribing broad areas of conduct unless no “rational basis serving a legitimate public policy objective can be articulated in defense of the challenged statutory classification.” State v. Stewart, 140 Vt. 389, 402 , 438 A.2d 671, 677-78 (1981) (embezzlement statute singling out certain classes of agents for harsher treatment than others is constitutional); see United States v. Richards, 737 F.2d 1307, 1310 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 (1985) (l…
discussed
Cited "see"
Stanley Dick v. Gene Scroggy, Warden
(2×)
See Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048, 1056-57 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985), where Judge Friendly quoted from United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 184-85 , 99 S.Ct. 2235, 2240 , 60 L.Ed.2d 805 (1979), as follows: 31 "It has, of course, long been settled law that an error that may justify reversal on direct appeal will not necessarily support a collateral attack on a final judgment.
discussed
Cited "see"
William C. Brennan v. United States
See Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048, 1056-57 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); Fiumara v. United States, 727 F.2d 209, 213 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951 , 104 S.Ct. 2154 , 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Spawr Optical Research, Inc., Walter J. Spawr, and Frances Spawr, Defendants
(2×)
See Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048 , 1050 n. 1 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Leo Klein
See United States v. Richards, 737 F.2d *1501 1307, 1310 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); Clayborne v. Califano, 603 F.2d 372 (2d Cir.1979); see also Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 537 , 54 S.Ct. 505, 516 , 78 L.Ed. 940 (1934) (due process is satisfied if means Congress selected bears some reasonable relation to a “proper legislative purpose” and is “neither arbitrary nor discriminatory”).
examined
Cited "see"
Easter House, an Illinois, Not-For-Profit Corporation v. Thomas Felder, Florence McGuire and Joan Satoloe
(4×)
The plaintiff, in addition to being the target of an improperly motivated investigation, must be “subjected ... to a deprivation of constitutional magnitude.” Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600, 630 (7th Cir.1979), rev’d, in part on other grounds, 446 U.S. 754 , 100 S.Ct. 1987 , 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980); see Cameo Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Senn, 738 F.2d 836, 845 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 780 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985). 6 “[MJalicious prosecution, standing alone, is insufficient to state a claim for relief under Section 1983.” Antonelli v. Burnham, 582 F.Sup…
cited
Cited "see"
Nicholas v. Sammons
See Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Sealed Case
See In re Grand Jury Proceedings (the Bank of Nova Scotia), 740 F.2d 817 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 778 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 691 F.2d 1384 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1119 , 103 S.Ct. 3086 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1348 (1983); cf. United States v. Vetco Inc., 691 F.2d 1281 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1098 , 102 S.Ct. 671 , 70 L.Ed.2d 639 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rascon v. Hardiman
Reeg v. Shaughnessy, 570 F.2d 309 (10th Cir.1978); United States v. Bowen, 411 F.2d 923 (5th Cir.1969); see Cameo Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Senn, 738 F.2d 836, 844 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 780 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rascon v. Hardiman
Reeg v. Shaughnessy, 570 F.2d 309 (10th Cir.1978); United States v. Bowen, 411 F.2d 923 (5th Cir.1969); see Cameo Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Senn, 738 F.2d 836, 844 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 780 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nieves v. Kelly
See, e.g., Wright v. United States, 559 F.Supp. 1139, 1146 (E.D.N.Y.1983) (“Brady, however, does not require the government to anticipate all possible defenses and provide the defendant with otherwise irrelevant information to bolster one possible factual theory, particularly where, as here, the theory itself ... is demonstrably implausible.”), affd, 732 F.2d 1048 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lee Vue, United States of America v. Neng Vue
See, e.g., United States v. Linn, 880 F.2d 209, 217 (9th Cir.1989), and United States v. Richards, 737 F.2d 1307, 1310 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Easter House, an Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation v. Thomas Felder, Florence McGuire and Joan Satoloe
(2×)
Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600, 630 (7th Cir.1979), rev’d in part on other grounds, 446 U.S. 754 , 100 S.Ct. 1987 , 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980); see also Cameo Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Senn, 738 F.2d 836, 845 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 780 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Easter House, an Illinois, Not-For-Profit Corporation v. Thomas Felder, Florence McGuire and Joan Satoloe
(2×)
Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600, 630 (7th Cir.1979), rev’d in part on other grounds, 446 U.S. 754 , 100 S.Ct. 1987 , 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980); see also Cameo Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Senn, 738 F.2d 836, 845 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 780 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hughes v. Bowers
The court explained that the use of a special prosecutor per se is not improper “where the District Attorney retains control and management of the prosecution, and the special prosecutor is not guilty of conduct prejudicial to the defendant, and the rights of the defendant are duly observed.” Id. at 325 (emphasis added); see also Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048, 1055-58 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985) (due process not violated where no evidence of specific misbehavior on part of prosecutor and where special prosecutor had no pecunia…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lawton Chiles, Jr., Bob Martinez, Metropolitan Dade County, Intervenors-Appellants v. Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States
Compare Dennis v. Luis, 741 F.2d 628, 630 (3d Cir.1984) (legislator had standing to challenge appointment by executive after legislature rejected it since legislator’s right to withhold consent for appointments nullified) and Moore v. United States House of Representatives, 733 F.2d 946, 951-52 (D.C.Cir.1984) (representative had standing to challenge revenue bill since he was deprived of his right to have revenue bills originate in House), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985) with United States Presbyterian Church v. Reagan, 738 F.2d 1375, 1381 (D.C.Cir.1984) (…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Schwartz v. Novo Industri A/S
Litig., 611 F.Supp. at 1322 (dictum); see also Cameo Convalescent Center v. Senn, 738 F.2d 836 , 846 (7th Cir.1984) (allowing compensation for reasonable law clerk and paralegal fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because “[s]uch a policy encourages cost-effective delivery of legal services”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 780 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris v. Marsh
See, e.g., Cameo Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Senn, 738 F.2d 836, 846 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 780 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985); Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Hodel, 622 F.Supp. 1160, 1168 (D.D.C.1985) ($30 per hour); Uzzell v. Friday, 618 F.Supp. 1222, 1229 (M.D.N.C.1985) ($25 per hour); Kirksey v. Danks, 608 F.Supp. 1448, 1459 (S.D.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mcnabb v. Bowen
See also Moore v. United States House of Representatives, 733 F.2d 946, 955 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
McNabb v. Bowen
See also Moore v. United States House of Representatives, 733 F.2d 946, 955 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Gill v. Missouri State Bd. of Probation and Parole
See, e.g., United States v. Richards, 737 F.2d 1307 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Anwar v. United States
Affidavits submitted by the government in opposition to a § 2255 motion cannot be deemed a part of the “records and files of the case” for the purpose of determining whether petitioner is entitled to a hearing, Taylor v. United States, 487 F.2d 307, 308 (2d Cir.1973), though such affidavits “may be considered in assessing the sufficiency of the petitioner’s supporting affidavit.” Dalli, 491 F.2d at 762 n. 4; see also Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048 , 1057 n. 10 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 779 , 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); United States v. Franzese, 525 F…
Texas Farm Bureau
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 84-276.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 7, 1985.
Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of South Carolina (1)
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.