Income Props., Inc. v. Lunsford, 489 U.S. 1019 (1989). · Go Syfert
Income Props., Inc. v. Lunsford, 489 U.S. 1019 (1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Thomas Gambino (ca2, 1995-07-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" United States v. Thomas Gambino
2d Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Blanco, 861 F.2d 773, 781 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1019 , 109 S.Ct. 1139 , 103 L.Ed.2d 200 (1989).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Teyibo
S.D.N.Y. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Blanco, 861 F.2d 773, 778 (2d Cir. 1988) (“A defendant’s claim that the government violated her right to a speedy trial is seriously undermined when the defendant, and not the government, is the cause of the delay.”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1019 , 109 S.Ct. 1139 , 103 L.Ed.2d 200 (1989); Clark v. Irvin, 844 F.Supp. 899, 905 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (“Because the delay was not attributable to the prosecution, and there is no indication that the prosecution deliberately delayed the trial, petitioner was not denied his right to speedy trial.”) Finally, the defendant has faile…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Bravo
2d Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Blanco, 861 F.2d 773 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1019 , 109 S.Ct. 1139 , 103 L.Ed.2d 200 (1989); United States v. Armedo-Sarmiento, 545 F.2d 785 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 917 , 97 S.Ct. 1330 , 1331, 51 L.Ed.2d 595 (1977).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Bravo
2d Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Blanco, 861 F.2d 773 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1019 , 109 S.Ct. 1139 , 103 L.Ed.2d 200 (1989); United States v. Armedo-Sarmiento, 545 F.2d 785 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 917 , 97 S.Ct. 1330 , 1331, 51 L.Ed.2d 595 (1977). 5 Trial of the indictment against twelve of the defendants, including Robinson, commenced on October 30, 1975 and continued for fourteen weeks.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Joseph Aracri, John Papandon, and Anthony Zummo
2d Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
As we observed in United States v. Barlin, 686 F.2d 81, 88 (2d Cir.1982): It is by now commonplace that “in order to promote the goal of ‘keeping distinct conspiracies distinct,’ the court should describe explicitly the possibility of several conspiracies and instruct the jury that in order to convict a given defendant, it must ‘find that he was a member of the conspiracy charged in the indictment and not some other conspiracy.’ ” Id. at 88 (citations omitted); see United States v. Blanco, 861 F.2d 773, 782 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1019 , 109 S.Ct. 1139 , 103 L.Ed.2d 2…
discussed Cited "see" Leroy H. Johnson, Jr. v. Alex Rodriguez, Etc.
1st Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341 , 99 *109 S.Ct. 1139, 1145, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) (state administrative agency is immune from § 1983 action). 5 Consequently, the suit against the state defendants is insupportable as a matter of law except, perhaps, as against Rodriguez in his individual capacity.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Ignacio Rodriguez
2d Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See, United States v. Blanco, 861 F.2d 773, 781 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1019 , 109 S.Ct. 1139 , 103 L.Ed.2d 200 (1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Holmes v. Bartlett
S.D.N.Y. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Rayborn, 858 F.2d at 93 ; see also United States v. Blanco, 861 F.2d 773, 780 (2d Cir.1988) (“[Sjince delay can just as easily hurt the government’s case, [petitioner’s] general claim that the delay impaired her defense also lacks force.”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1019 , 109 S.Ct. 1139 , 103 L.Ed.2d 200 (1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Rivera
2d Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
“A trial judge does not abuse his discretion by curtailing cross-examination as long as the jury has ‘sufficient information to make a discriminating appraisal of the particular witness’s possible motives for testifying falsely in favor of the government.’ ” United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1018 (2d Cir.1990) (quoting Singh, 628 F.2d at 763 ); see also United States v. Blanco, 861 F.2d 773, 781 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1019 , 109 S.Ct. 1139 , 103 L.Ed.2d 200 (1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Rivera
2d Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
"A trial judge does not abuse his discretion by curtailing cross-examination as long as the jury has 'sufficient information to make a discriminating appraisal of the particular witness's possible motives for testifying falsely in favor of the government.' " United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1018 (2d Cir.1990) (quoting Singh, 628 F.2d at 763 ); see also United States v. Blanco, 861 F.2d 773, 781 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1019 , 109 S.Ct. 1139 , 103 L.Ed.2d 200 (1989). 54 The district court did not allow Rivera to recall Johnson or Gautier, but Rivera had already cross-examined…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Income Properties, Inc.
v.
Lunsford
No. 88-1152.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 21, 1989.
489 U.S. 1019
Published

Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.