green
Positive treatment
3.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Larry and Karen Spielman v. Sara C. Hildebrand and Don Madsen
But see L.J. by and through Darr v. Massinga, 838 F.2d 118, 123 (4th Cir.1988) (AACWA spells out “standard of conduct” that plaintiffs may enforce by equity or damages), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 109 S.Ct. 816 , 102 L.Ed.2d 805 (1989); Lynch v. Dukakis, 719 F.2d 504, 512 (1st Cir.1983) (holding AACWA can support private action for prospective injunctive relief).
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson Ex Rel. Estate of Cano v. Holmes
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See L.J. ex rel Darr v. Massinga, 838 F.2d 118 (4th Cir.1988), ce rt. denied, 488 U.S. 1018 , 109 S.Ct. 816 , 102 L.Ed.2d 805 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Norman v. McDonald
See L.J. v. Massinga, 838 F.2d 118, 123 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1018 , 109 S.Ct. 816 , 102 L.Ed.2d 805 (1989) (§§ 627(a)(2)(B), 671(a)(9), (10), (16), 675); Lynch v. Dukakis, 719 F.2d 504, 510-11 (1st Cir.1983) (§§ 608, 671(a)(16), 675); Jeanine B. v. Thompson, 877 F.Supp. 1268, 1283-85 (E.D.Wis.1995) (§§ 671(a)(2), (3), (7), (10), (11), (13), 627(a)(2), 627(b)(3)); LaShawn A v. Dixon, 762 F.Supp. 959, 988-89 (D.D.C.1991), aff 'd on other grounds sub nom., LaShawn A. v. Kelly, 990 F.2d 1319 (D.C.Cir.1993), ce rt. denied, 510 U.S. 1044 , 114 S.Ct. 691 , 126 L.Ed.2d 659 (199…
discussed
Cited "see"
Jeanine B. Ex Rel. Blondis v. Thompson
See L.J. v. Massinga, 838 F.2d 118 , 123 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1018 , 109 S.Ct. 816 , 102 L.Ed.2d 805 (1989); Lynch v. Dukakis, 719 F.2d 504, 509-12 (1st Cir.1983); LaShawn A. v. Dixon, 762 F.Supp. 959, 987-89 (D.D.C.1991), aff'd in part on other grounds, 990 F.2d 1319 (D.C.Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 691 , 126 L.Ed.2d 659 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Santiago Tapia v. Robert Tansy
Laycock v. State of New Mexico, 880 F.2d 1184, 1187 (10th Cir.1989) (ineffective assistance of counsel); Nichols v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d at 1253 (citing Taylor v. Lombard, 606 F.2d 371, 375 (2d Cir.1979) (addresses alleged prosecutorial use of perjured testimony), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 946 , 100 S.Ct. 1346 , 63 L.Ed.2d 781 (1980)); Haggins v. Warden, Fort Pillow State Farm, 715 F.2d 1050, 1055 (6th Cir.1983) (right to confrontation), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1071 , 104 S.Ct. 980 , 79 L.Ed.2d 217 (1984); see Browning v. Foltz, 837 F.2d 276, 280-81 (6th Cir.1988) (notice of charges), cert. denied, …
discussed
Cited "see"
Joe H. Crowhorn v. Al C. Parke
See Browning v. Foltz, 837 F.2d 276, 283 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 816 (1989). 8 For this reason, the district court's judgment is hereby affirmed pursuant to Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. * The Honorable Paul V.
cited
Cited "see"
Grizzell v. McWherter
See Browning v. Foltz, 837 F.2d 276, 283 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 816 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gregory Carnill v. United States
See Browning v. Foltz, 837 F.2d 276, 279 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 816 (1989). 5 Upon further consideration, we conclude the summary denial of Carnill's motion was proper as it plainly appeared from the record that he was not entitled to relief.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kidd v. Dalkon Shield Trust
See, e.g., United States v. Branch, 850 F.2d 1080, 1083 (5th Cir.1988) (holding that denial of a § 144 motion appropriate when a party fails to accompany the motion with an affidavit and certificate), cer t. denied, 488 U.S. 1018 , 109 S.Ct. 816 , 102 L.Ed.2d 806 (1989); United States v. Sammons, 918 F.2d 592, 598-99 (6th Cir.l990)(reaching same result); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1162-63 (9th Cir.l981)(reaching same result); Galella v. Onassis, 487 F.2d 986, 997 (2d Cir.1973) (reaching same result). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Remeta v. Singletary
Hunter, 15 F.3d at 1012 ; see also Seymore v. State of Ala., 846 F.2d 1355, 1359 (11th Cir.1988) (holding that “violations of the LAD are non-fundamental defects and — absent a showing of some sort of prejudice — are uneognizable in a federal habeas proceeding”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1018 , 109 S.Ct. 816 , 102 L.Ed.2d 806 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Glendale Neighborhood Ass'n v. Greensboro Housing Authority
Co., 550 F.2d 189, 193-196 (4th Cir.1977); see also L.J. v. Massinga, 838 F.2d 118 , 120 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1018 , 109 S.Ct. 816 , 102 L.Ed.2d 805 (1989); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Bradley, 756 F.2d 1048, 1054 (4th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Robert F. Hagmann
Defense counsel did not object to this instruction at trial, and ‘‘[w]here an objection to a jury instruction is raised for the first time on appeal, even an inaccurate instruction will be upheld absent ‘plain error.'” United States v. Gammage, 790 F.2d 431, 434 (5th Cir.1986) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Branch, 850 F.2d 1080, 1083 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1018 , 109 S.Ct. 816 , 102 L.Ed.2d 806 (1989).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Branch
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 88-5565.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 9, 1989.
Certiorari.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Justice White would grant certiorari.