green
Positive treatment
10.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
in Re the State of Texas Ex Rel. Abelino Reyna, Relator v. Court of Appeals for the Tenth District
See Levine v. United States District Court, 764 F.2d 590, 596 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Airport Neighbors Alliance, Inc. v. United States
See American Mining Congress v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 617, 626 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 718 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Airport Neighbors Alliance, Inc. v. United States
See American Mining Congress v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 617, 626 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 718 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Pallor
See State v. Cohen, 103 N.M. 558, 563-64 , 711 P.2d 3, 8-9 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986); State v. Valencia Olaya, 105 N.M. 690, 696 , 736 P.2d 495, 501 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 105 N.M. 689 , 736 P.2d 494 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Graves
Summers, 452 U.S. at 702 , 101 S.Ct. at 2594 ; see State v. Cohen, 103 N.M. 558, 561 , 711 P.2d 3, 6 (1985) (the ultimate test is one of reasonableness of the detention under the circumstances including the facts the detaining officer observed), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Williams
(2×)
See State v. Cohen, 103 N.M. 558, 563 , 711 P.2d 3, 8 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Werner
(2×)
See State v. Cohen, 103 N.M. 558, 561 , 711 P.2d 3, 6 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986); see also United States v. Corral, 970 F.2d 719, 723 (10th Cir.1992) (questions of law, including reasonableness in Fourth Amendment issues, are reviewed de novo).
cited
Cited "see"
Kaw Valley, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency of the United States
See American Mining Congress v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 617, 639 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 718 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mount Evans Co. v. Madigan
See American Mining Congress v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 617, 626 (10th Cir.1985) (agency’s action must be reviewed on basis agency articulates and on evidence before agency at time it acted), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 718 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mount Evans Company v. Madigan
See American Mining Congress v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 617, 626 (10th Cir.1985) (agency's action must be reviewed on basis agency articulates and on evidence before agency at time it acted), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 718 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kenneth T. Hayward, and William B. Krause, Jr.
See United States v. Holloway, 778 F.2d 653, 655 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 , and cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1009 , 106 S.Ct. 3307 , 92 L.Ed.2d 720 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Affsprung
See State v. Cohen, 103 N.M. 558 , 711 P.2d 3 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986) (detention of the defendants’ vehicle after the officer received negative information as to whether the defendants were wanted or whether defendants were driving a stolen car was proper when based on reasonable suspicion); City of Las Cruces v. Betancourt, 105 N.M. 655 , 735 P.2d 1161 (Ct.App.) (in roadblock stop, motorists should be detained only long enough to be informed of the purpose of the stop and to look into the vehicle for signs of intoxication; further detenti…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Werner
See State v. Cohen, 103 N.M. 558 , 711 P.2d 3 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Hayward
See United States v. Holloway, 778 F.2d 653, 657 (11th Cir.1985) (prosecutor may inform witness that he would be subject to prosecution for lying to the grand jury), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert Lee Norris v. Henry Risley, Warden
See Levine v. United States District Court, 764 F.2d 590, 597-98 (9th Cir.1985) (affirming the district court’s decision that a prior restraint on speech was justified by a serious and imminent threat to a fair *833 trial), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Lara
See generally State v. Cohen, 103 N.M. 558 , 711 P.2d 3 (1985) (court found detention valid, for it was based on articulable and available facts, which warrant officer as person of reasonable caution to believe that action taken was appropriate), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
American Mining Congress v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States of America, Quivira Mining Company, Kerr-Mcgee Chemical Corporation, and Homestake Mining Company of California v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States of America
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See American Mining Congress v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 640 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 718 (1986); (American Mining Congress II).
discussed
Cited "see"
American Mining Congress v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See American Mining Congress v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 640 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 718 (1986); (American Mining Congress II).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Lopez
See State v. Cohen, 103 N.M. 558 , 711 P.2d 3 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986); State v. Ray, 91 N.M. 67 , 570 P.2d 605 (Ct.App.1977).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Mantle
See State v. Cohen, 103 N.M. 558 , 711 P.2d 3 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986); LaFave, Search and Seizure, Vol. 3, § 9.3(c), at pp. 442-459 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Hadley
See State v. Cohen, 103 N.M. 558 , 711 P.2d 3 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986); State v. Ruud, 90 N.M. 647 , 567 P.2d 496 (Ct.App.1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Environmental Defense Fund v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Sec. 2022 (b)(1); see American Mining Congress v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 640 (10th Cir.1985) (AMC II ) (upholding EPA active site regulations against several challenges), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 718 (1986); American Mining Congress v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 617 (10th Cir.1985) (AMC I ) (reviewing EPA inactive site regulations), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2275 , 90 L.Ed.2d 718 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Environmental Defense Fund v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
More specifically, petitioners argue that certain site-specific deviations, which the NRC claims it has authority to permit under § 84(c) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 42 U.S.C. § 2114 (c), are impermissible under UMTRCA and ineffective without the EPA’s concurrence therein. 2 I UMTRCA charges the EPA with the duty to promulgate general standards to protect the public health and the environment from both radiological and nonradio-logical hazards presented by uranium and thorium mill tailings at active sites. 42 U.S.C. § 2022 (b)(1); see American Mining Congress v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 640 (…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. William A. Kilpatrick, Declan J. O'donnell, Sheila C. Lerner, the Bank of Nova Scotia, Michael Alberga, C.S. Gill, and C.M. Smith
(2×)
See United States v. Holloway, 778 F.2d 653, 658-59 (11th Cir.1985) (noting authority on both sides of issue), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Environmental Policy Institute, State of Maine, and State of Vermont v. United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States of America, Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Intervenors. Carolina Power & Light Company, Intervenors. State of Vermont v. United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States of America, Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Intervenors. Carolina Power & Light Company, Intervenors. State of Texas v. Environmental Protection Agency and Lee M. Thomas, Administrator, Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Intervenors. Carolina Power & Light Company, Intervenors. State of Minnesota, by Its Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey, III v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Intervenors. Carolina Power & Light Company, Intervenors
See American Mining Congress v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 617, 639 (10th Cir.1985) (upholding an alternative compliance exception to regulations under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, since judicial review was available to test the reasonableness of granted exceptions), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 718 (1986). 178 (3) The Assurance Requirements 179 Minnesota also attacks the EPA's decision that the assurance requirements, 40 C.F.R.
discussed
Cited "see"
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
See American Mining Congress v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 617, 639 (10th Cir.1985) (upholding an alternative compliance exception to regulations under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, since judicial review was available to test the reasonableness of granted exceptions), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 718 (1986). (3) The Assurance Requirements Minnesota also attacks the EPA’s decision that the assurance requirements, 40 C.F.R. § 191.14 , will be applicable only to disposal facilities that are not regulated by the NRC.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Red Elk
Risken, 788 F.2d at 1371 ; see also, United States v. Holloway, 778 F.2d 653, 657 (11th Cir.1985) (prosecutor may inform witness that he would be subject to prosecution for lying to grand jury), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 2277, 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Galloway
See, e.g., State v. Cohen, 103 N.M. 558, 560-63 , 711 P.2d 3, 5-8 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986); see also United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881-82 , 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2580 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975) (officers could ask questions about citizenship and for an explanation of suspicious circumstances based on reasonable suspicion).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Estrada
United States v. Espinosa; United States v. McFayden, 865 F.2d 1306, 1312 (D.C.Cir.1989) (roadblocks must detain drivers no longer than is reasonably necessary to accomplish the purposes of checking licenses and registration, unless other facts come to light creating reasonable suspicion of criminal activity); see also State v. Cohen, 103 N.M. 558 , 711 P.2d 3 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986) (detention of a defendant after the reason for a valid stop expires is analogous to an initial Terry stop and therefore must be based on reasonable suspicion).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. Stanley Simon
Compare Radio & Television News Assn. v. United States District Court, 781 F.2d 1443 , 1446 (CA9 1986) (order challenged by media), with Levine v. United States District Court, 764 F.2d 590, 595 (CA9 1985) (order challenged by trial participants), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158 , 106 S.Ct. 2276 , 90 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Levine
v.
United States District Court for the Central District of California (United States, Real Party in Interest)
v.
United States District Court for the Central District of California (United States, Real Party in Interest)
No. 85-1291.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 2, 1986.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.