green
Positive treatment
3.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Wickersham v. United States
See United States v. Swaim, 757 F.2d 1530, 1534 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 , 106 S.Ct. 81 , 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985); United States v. Hausmann, 711 F.2d 615, 616-17 (5th Cir.1983). .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jakeway
See United States v. Swaim, 757 F.2d 1530, 1533 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 , 106 S.Ct. 81 , 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
County of Esmeralda, State of Nevada v. U.S. Department of Energy, County of Inyo, State of California v. U.S. Department of Energy
(2×)
See International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Donovan, 746 F.2d 855, 862 (D.C.Cir.1984) (declining to review an administrative funding decision, stating that “[t]he distribution of public funds among competing social programs is an archetypically political task, involving the application of value judgments and predictions to innumerable alternatives”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 , 106 S.Ct. 81 , 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. McGuire
Thus it is a badly misleading fiction to label a Gaudin-type issue as error.17 Quite simply, we should not try to force this square Gaudin peg into the round plain error hole drilled by Olano and Calverley; instead, we should proceed to carve out a separate but limited square hole into which Gaudin-type "errors" fit, then define the proper standard under which we review them. 15 507 U.S. at 732-34 , 113 S.Ct. at 1777 (citations omitted); See also Calverley, 37 F.3d at 162 . 16 See, e.g., United States v. Swaim, 757 F.2d 1530, 1534 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 , 106 S.Ct. 81 , 88 L.Ed…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jimmy D. McGuire
(2×)
In Calverley, we recognized these three criteria and explained that in "exceptional circumstances, appellate courts may, in the interest of justice, notice errors to which no objection has been made"; however, we also qualified that statement in the next sentence by stating that "[s]uch circumstances are sharply circumscribed by the plain error standard requiring that unobjected-to errors be 'plain' and 'affect substantial rights.' " 37 F.3d at 162 (emphasis added & footnotes omitted) Although the three Olano criteria have been described by the Supreme Court and this court as limitations on ap…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vigil v. Rhoades
See also International Union, United Autoworkers v. Donovan, 746 F.2d 855 , 861 (D.C.Cir.1984) ("A lump-sum appropriation leaves it to the recipient agency (as a matter of law, at least) to distribute the funds among some or all of the permissible objects as it sees fit."), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 , 106 S.Ct. 81 , 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985). 11 The government contends that the termination of the Project services in this case is similar to the grant termination in CALC; that is, a mere funding determination which is unsuitable for judicial review.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vigil v. Rhoades
See also International Union, United Autoworkers v. Donovan, 746 F.2d 855 , 861 (D.C.Cir.1984) (“A lumpsum appropriation leaves it to the recipient agency (as a matter of law, at least) to distribute the funds among some or all of the permissible objects as it sees fit.”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 , 106 S.Ct. 81 , 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Porter
v.
O'Farrell
v.
O'Farrell
No. 84-1946.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1985.
Published
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.