green
Positive treatment
6.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Chantharath v. State
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676 (1st Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Sawyer
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 679 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kettenbach v. Demoulas
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 686-87 (1st Cir.1987) (in prosecution for medical insurance fraud, false records maintained to conceal fraudulent claims submitted by physicians were statements that “clearly furthered the main objectives of the conspiracy”) (internal quotations and citation omitted), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988); United States v. Paone, 782 F.2d 386, 391 (2d Cir.1986) (“[I]n furtherance requirement ... satisfied when a co-conspirator is apprised of the progress of the conspiracy, or when the statements are designed to indu…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cassiere
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 683 (1st Cir.1987) (Maniego instruction not required where the “prosecutor did not attempt to create the impression that [the attorney] should be held to a higher standard of care” and where comments during trial about the defendant’s status as an attorney “were directed towards [defendant’s] role (as a lawyer) which was central to the scheme”), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988); Picciandra, 788 F.2d at 46 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Debra A. Hartmann, Kenneth K. Kaenel, and John Scott Korabik
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 684 (1st Cir.1987) (invocation of the.Fifth Amendment during cross-examination is proper under Rule 608(b) and may be considered by the jury as a form of impeachment) (citing Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 , 37 S.Ct. 192 , 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917)), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jorge Ivan Berrio-Londono
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 685 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Bowden v. State
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676 (1st Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Casamento
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 685 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Casamento
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 685 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Blalock
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 685 (1st Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 108 S. Ct. 1080 (1988) (statements admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules *705 of Evidence even though defendant not aware of specific content of statements).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mercer v. Armontrout
See Leggins v. Lockhart, 822 F.2d 764, 768 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988) (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 , 134 n. 43, 102 S.Ct. 1558 , 1575 n. 43, 71 L.Ed.2d 783 (1982)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Winford L. Stokes, Jr. v. William M. Armontrout, William L. Webster
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Leggins v. Lockhart, 822 F.2d 764, 768 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988) (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 , 134 n. 43, 102 S.Ct. 1558 , 1575 n. 43, 71 L.Ed.2d 783 (1982)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gamez v. State
See also United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676 (1st Cir.1987) (holding if the witness intends to claim the privilege as to essentially all questions, the court may, in its discretion, refuse to allow him to take the stand), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988); United States v. Deutsch, 987 F.2d 878 (2d Cir.1993) (holding the trial court has the discretion to prevent a party from calling a witness solely to have him or her invoke the fifth amendment).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wilburn A. Henderson v. Willis Sargent, Warden, Arkansas Department of Correction
Before moving past the exhaustion requirement to cause and prejudice, we note that the Supreme Court “generally requires that a claim of ineffective assistance be presented to the state courts as an independent claim before it may be used to establish cause for procedural default.” Carrier, 477 U.S. at 489 , 106 S.Ct. at 2646 ; see also Leggins v. Lockhart, 822 F.2d 764 , 768 n. 5 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Muzamal Chaudhry, A/K/A Omar Muzamal
Without question, appellant was afforded — and exercised — an ample “opportunity for effective cross-examination.” Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20 , 106 S.Ct. 292, 295 , 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1985) (per curiam) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 683-84 (1st Cir.1987) (same), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thompson
v.
Pfeiffer
v.
Pfeiffer
No. 87-5647.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 29, 1988.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.