green
Positive treatment
6.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Ziemann v. Burlington County Bridge Commission
(2×)
But see In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 867 F.2d 562 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 906 , 110 S.Ct. 265 , 107 L.Ed.2d 214 reh’g denied, 493 U.S. 985 , 110 S.Ct. 523 , 107 L.Ed.2d 524 (1989) (declining to recognize psychotherapist-patient privilege in context of grand jury investigation); United States v. Corona, 849 F.2d 562 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1084 , 109 S.Ct. 1542 , 103 L.Ed.2d 846 (1989) (rejecting assertion of psychotherapist-patient privilege in federal criminal trials).
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Evan Miller (88-2272) and Jonathan Miller (89-1129)
But see United States v. Duncan, 870 F.2d 1532, 1536 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 264 , 107 L.Ed.2d 214 (1989) (the term offense does not “restrict a sentencing judge to [consider] only those acts for which conviction was had, or for which the defendant pleaded guilty”).
examined
Cited "see"
William George Bonin v. Arthur Calderon, as Warden of San Quentin State Prison James Rowland, Director of the California Department of Corrections
(4×)
See Neuschafer v. Whitley, 860 F.2d 1470, 1482 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 906 , 110 S.Ct. 264 , 107 L.Ed.2d 214 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lincoln Lane Addleman, Jr. v. Janet Barbour, Superintendent Kathryn S. Bail
See Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 519-20 (9th Cir.1992) (citing Neuschafer v. Whitley, 860 F.2d 1470, 1475-76 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 906 (1989) and Tannehill v. Fitzharris, 451 F.2d 1322, 1323 (9th Cir.1971)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Leonard John Hodgson v. Daniel Vasquez
See Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 519-20 (9th Cir.1992) (citing Neuschafer v. Whitley, 860 F.2d 1470, 1475-76 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 906 (1989); Tannehill v. Fitzharris, 451 F.2d 1322, 1323 (9th Cir.1971)). 2 5 Finally, Hodgson argues that newly discovered evidence establishes cause.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mines v. City of Philadelphia
(2×)
See In re Grand Jury, 867 F.2d 562 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 493 U.S. 906 , 110 S.Ct. 265 , 107 L.Ed.2d 214 (1989); United States v. Corona, 849 F.2d 562 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1084 , 109 S.Ct. 1542 , 103 L.Ed.2d 846 (1989); United States v. Meagher, 531 F.2d 752 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 853 , 97 S.Ct. 146 , 50 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. D.F.
(4×)
See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 867 F.2d 562, 565 (9th Cir.) (“[b]eeause our discretion under Rule 501 is limited to the development of privileges extant in the common law, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to quash subpoenas of Doe’s psychiatric records .... we decline to reach the merits of the efficacy of the psychotherapist-patient privilege by this holding, but we do opine that if such a privilege is to be recognized in federal criminal proceedings, it is up to Congress to define it, not this court”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 906 , 110 S.Ct. 265 , 107 L.Ed.2d 214…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Wilkie Bill Burtrum, Jr.
(2×)
See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 867 F.2d 562, 565 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 906 , 110 S.Ct. 265 , 107 L.Ed.2d 214 (1989); United States v. Corona, 849 F.2d 562, 567 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1084 , 109 S.Ct. 1542 , 103 L.Ed.2d 846 (1989); United States v. Meagher, 531 F.2d 752, 753 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 853 , 97 S.Ct. 146 , 50 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Karis v. Vasquez
See Neuschafer v. Whitley, 860 F.2d 1470, 1477-82 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. *1455 906, 110 S.Ct. 264 , 107 L.Ed.2d 214 (1989) (Alarcon, J., concurring); see also Ainsworth v. Vasquez, 759 F.Supp. 1467 (E.D.Cal.1991) (en banc).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. David Lambert
See Taylor v. United States, 493 U.S. 906 , 110 S.Ct. 265 , 107 L.Ed.2d 215 (1989) (Stevens, J., concurring in the denial of cert.) (agreeing with Lopez)', United States v. Taylor, 937 F.2d 676, 683 (D.C.Cir.1991); United States v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 1237, 1239 (11th Cir.1991); United States v. Lassiter, 929 F.2d 267, 270 (6th Cir.1991); United States v. Thomas, 906 F.2d 323, 329 (7th Cir.1990); United States v. Summers, 893 F.2d 63, 68 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Coe, 891 F.2d 405, 412-14 (2d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re John Doe, United States of America v. Steven Diamond
(2×)
See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 867 F.2d 562 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 906 , 110 S.Ct. 265 , 107 L.Ed.2d 214 (1989) (no psychotherapist-patient privilege); United States v. Corona, 849 F.2d 562, 567 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1084 , 109 S.Ct. 1542 , 103 L.Ed.2d 846 (1989) (no psychotherapist-patient privilege in federal criminal trials); United States v. Lindstrom, 698 F.2d 1154 (11th Cir.1983) (same); United States v. Meagher, 531 F.2d 752 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 853 , 97 S.Ct. 146 , 50 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
Richard H. Parson v. Richard H. Rison, Warden
See Neuschafer v. Whitley, 860 F2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 US 906 (1989). 4 As to claim (3), the severity of petitioner's sentence, the Commission report stated that "[a]fter review of all relevant factors and information presented, a decision above the guidelines appears warranted because the following circumstances are present: this is the third time you have violated parole on this sentence and you have also had your parole rescinded on two other occasions, thus you are an extremely poor parole risk." Notice of Action [ER 9 exhibit J] at 2.
discussed
Cited "see"
Coleman v. Vasquez
See Neuschafer v. Whitley, 860 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 264 , 107 L.Ed.2d 214 (1989) (citing Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 18-19 , 83 S.Ct. 1068, 1078-79 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1229, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2776, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1821 Arthur Calderon, Warden, California State Prison at San Quentin Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of the State of California v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Patrick Bruce Gordon, Real Party in Interest
(2×)
See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 , 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) ("This Court has long held that a state prisoner's federal habeas petition should be dismissed if the prisoner has not exhausted available state remedies as to any of his federal claims.") (citing Rose, 455 U.S. at 513-520 , 102 S.Ct. at 1200-1204 ); see also James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 24 (9th Cir.) ("In general, a habeas petition should be dismissed if a petitioner has failed to exhaust state remedies as to even one claim."), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 935 , 115 S.Ct. 333 , 130 L.Ed.2d 291 (1994). 8 14 The …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Calderon v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
(2×)
See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 , 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (“This Court has long held that a state prisoner’s federal habeas petition should be dismissed if the prisoner has not exhausted available state remedies as to any of his federal claims.”) (citing Rose, 455 U.S. at 513-520 , 102 S.Ct. at 1200-1204 ); see also James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 24 (9th Cir.) (“In general, a habeas petition should be dismissed if a petitioner has failed to exhaust state remedies as to even one claim.”), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 115 S.Ct. 333 , 130 L.Ed.2d 291 (1994). 8…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
(2×)
ABC’s reliance on state law privileges as giving rise to a journalist’s privilege in this case is .without merit since state law privileges do not apply to a federal grand jury subpoena: See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 867 F.2d 562, 564 (9th Cir.) (“federal privilege law, not state law, must be applied in criminal cases brought in federal court”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 906 , 110 S.Ct. 265 , 107 L.Ed.2d 214 (1989); In re Subpoena Served Upon Jorge S. Zuniga, 714 F.2d 632, 636 (6th Cir.) (“inasmuch as the subpoenas in issue are the product of a federal grand jury investigatio…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ovie L. Duncan
v.
United States
v.
United States
88-7294.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 10, 1989.
White.
Cited by 56 opinions | Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Lead Opinion
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Dissent
Justice White,
dissenting.
This case involves the interpretation of 18 U. S. C. § 3663(a) (1982 ed., Supp. V), which provides that a court may order a defendant convicted under that title to make restitution “to any victim of such offense.” Ibid. In this case, the Tenth Circuit read the term “offense” as used in § 3663(a) broadly: the term does not “restrict a sentencing judge to conside[r] only those acts for which conviction was had, or for which the defendant pleaded guilty.” 870 F. 2d 1532, 1536 (1989). The Sixth Circuit, by contrast, has “adopted a narrow definition of ‘offense’ holding that ‘[a] natural construction of this language would require that the defendant make restitution only to victims of the offense for which he was convicted.’” United States v. Mounts, 793 F. 2d 125, 127 (1986) (citations omitted). I would grant the petition for a writ of certio-rari in order to resolve this conflict.