green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.8 score
“express notice of purpose is unnecessary where from the officer's view of the situation the occupant must surely have known why admittance into a habitation was desired”
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Commonwealth v. Antwine
express notice of purpose is unnecessary where from the officer's view of the situation the occupant must surely have known why admittance into a habitation was desired
discussed
Cited "see"
Kozorowski v. Russian Federation
See Gregorian v. Izvestia, 658 F.Supp. 1224, 1233-34 (C.D.Cal.1987) (noting that the exceptions in § 1605(a)(5)(B) mirror the exceptions of FTCA § 2680(h)), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 871 F.2d 1515 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Barbara Copeland
See generally Schulz v. Long, 44 F.3d 643, 648-49 (8th Cir.1995) (holding that when examining whether conduct during seizure is proper, courts must take into account the information possessed by officer and determine if conduct falls within range of objectively reasonable actions). 10 Copeland notes, correctly, that we have stated that "the focus 'is properly not on what "magic words" are spoken by the police, but rather on how these words and other actions of the police will be perceived by the occupant....' " United States v. Finch, 998 F.2d 349, 354 (6th Cir.1993) (quoting United States v. …
discussed
Cited "see"
Bryks v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp.
See Gregorian v. Izvestia, 871 F.2d 1515, 1522 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891 , 110 S.Ct. 237 , 107 L.Ed.2d 188 (1989); Yessenin-Volpin v. Novosti Press Agency, 443 F.Supp. 849, 856 (S.D.N.Y.1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca4 1995
See NLRB v. Plymouth Stamping Div., Eltec Corp., 870 F.2d 1112 , 1117 n.2 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891 , 110 S.Ct. 235 , 107 L.Ed.2d 186 (1989). 44 The parties, however, need not pursue negotiations simply to go through the motions when there is no objectively reasonable hope of reaching an agreement.
cited
Cited "see"
AMF Bowling Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
See NLRB v. Plymouth Stamping Div., Eltec Corp., 870 F.2d 1112 , 1117 n.2 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891 , 110 S.Ct. 235 , 107 L.Ed.2d 186 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ibekwe
See United States v. Stoneman, 870 F.2d 102, 105-06 (3d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891 , 110 S.Ct. 236 , 107 L.Ed.2d 187 (1989); United States v. Folak, 865 F.2d 110, 113 (7th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Shugart
See United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 873 F.2d 7, 9 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891 , 110 S.Ct. 236 , 107 L.Ed.2d 187 (1989); United States v. Tolliver, 665 F.2d 1005, 1008 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 935 , 102 S.Ct. 1991 , 72 L.Ed.2d 455 (1982); United States v. Jackson, 585 F.2d 653, 662 (4th Cir.1978).
cited
Cited "see"
ca9 1994
See Gregorian v. Izvestia, 871 F.2d 1515, 1527 (9th Cir.) (something legally significant must actually happen in the United States), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Brown
See Magnus Electronics, Inc. v. Masco Corp. of Indiana, 871 F.2d 626 (8th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891 , 110 S.Ct. 237 , 107 L.Ed.2d 188 (1989) (motion to reconsider is frivolous if it contains no new evidence or arguments or law that explains why court should change an original order); Costello, Porter, Hill, Heisterkamp & Bushnell v. Providers Fidelity Life Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Garcia
See United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 873 F.2d 7, 9 (1st Cir.) (shorter wait [five to ten seconds] before entry justified by fact that officers had probable cause to believe occupants possessed cocaine, a substance that is easily and quickly removed down a toilet), cert. denied sub nom, Latreverse v. United States, 493 U.S. 891 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Garcia
See United States v. ___ _____________ One Parcel of Real Property, 873 F.2d 7, 9 (1st Cir.) ______________________________ (shorter wait [five to ten seconds] before entry justified by fact that officers had probable cause to believe occupants possessed cocaine, a substance that is easily and quickly removed down a toilet), cert. denied sub nom, Latreverse v. _____ ______ ___ ___ __________ United States, 493 U.S. 891 (1989). _____________ C.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jose A. Garcia, United States v. Pablo H. Garcia
See United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 873 F.2d 7, 9 (1st Cir.) (shorter wait [five to ten seconds] before entry justified by fact that officers had probable cause to believe occupants possessed cocaine, a substance that is easily and quickly removed down a toilet), cert. denied sub nom, Latreverse v. United States, 493 U.S. 891 , 110 S.Ct. 236 , 107 L.Ed.2d 187 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Antares Aircraft, L.P. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Nigerian Airports Authority
See Gregorian v. Izvestia, 871 F.2d 1515, 1527 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891 , 110 S.Ct. 237 , 107 L.Ed.2d 188 (1989); Zedan, 849 F.2d at 1515 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Richard E. Schwartz v. James Kujawa
See e.g., Magnus Elecs., Inc. v. Masco Corp. of Indiana, 871 F.2d 626, 634 (7th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891 , and Blue v. U.S. Dept. of Army, 914 F.2d 525 , 548 (4th Cir. 1990), cert. denied sub nom, 499 U.S. 959 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Schwartz v. Kujawa (In Re Kujawa)
See e.g., Magnus Elecs., Inc. v. Masco Corp. of Indiana, 871 F.2d 626, 634 (7th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891 , 110 S.Ct. 237 , 107 L.Ed.2d 188 , and Blue v. U.S. Dept. of Army, 914 F.2d 525, 548 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied sub nom, 499 U.S. 959 , 111 S.Ct. 1580 , 113 L.Ed.2d 645 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Morgan Equipment Co. v. Novokrivorogsky State Ore Mining & Processing Enterprise
Weltover, Inc. v. Republic of Argentina, 941 F.2d 145, 152 (2d Cir.1991); see also Gregorian v. Izvestia, 871 F.2d 1515, 1526-27 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891 , 110 S.Ct. 237 , 107 L.Ed.2d 188 (1989)(direet effect is one that is substantial and foreseeable, mere financial loss is insufficient).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The Export Group Emilio Figueroa Jack Andrews v. Reef Industries, Inc., and Mexican Coffee Institute
United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir.1990) (stating that facts and documents not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal); United States v. Patrin, 575 F.2d 708, 712 (9th Cir.1978); see also Gregorian v. Izvestia, 871 F.2d 1515, 1528 (9th Cir.) (refusing to resolve factual dispute as to jurisdiction as a result of “facts” urged by plaintiff that were not pleaded in the plaintiffs complaint), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891 , 110 S.Ct. 237 , 107 L.Ed.2d 188 (1989).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Isiah Evans, III v. Dennis Wolfe, David Rardin, United States of America
See also Magnus Electronics v. Masco Corp. of Indiana, 871 F.2d 626, 631 (7th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891 (1989).
Galahad
v.
Weinshienk, Judge, United States District Court for the District of Colorado
v.
Weinshienk, Judge, United States District Court for the District of Colorado
No. 89-103.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 10, 1989.
Published
Citer courts: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial… (1)
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.