green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
13.6 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 1 distinct case ·
“The Government bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that venue exists.”
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Villalobos-Macias
the government bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that venue exists.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Chang v. Cargill, Inc.
statements which are 'loosely definable' or variously interpretable' cannot in most contexts support an action for defamation.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Joseph V.
See State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359 , 391–92, 556 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S. Ct. 322 , 107 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Joseph V.
See State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359 , 391–92, 556 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S. Ct. 322 , 107 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Douglas C.
See State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359 , 391–92, 556 A.2d 112 (determining that defendant’s right to unanimous verdict was not violated in absence of specific unanimity instruction, even though six specific acts of sexual activity were alleged in two counts), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S. Ct. 322 , 107 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Resch v. State of New York
Since plaintiffs have not identified a State law or regulation independent of the Constitution that confers upon them a property interest in the employment status they seek, they have not stated a claim for violations of their right to due process of law (NY Const art I, § 6; see Matter of Deas v Levitt , 73 NY2d 525, 531 [1989], cert denied 493 US 933 [1989]; Matter of Shelofsky v Helsby , 32 NY2d 54, 61 [1973], appeal dismissed 414 US 804 [1973]; Matter of Voorhis v Warwick Val.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer
(2×)
See United States v. 57,261 Items of Drug Paraphernalia, 869 F.2d 955 , 956 (6th Cir.) (Customs agents “made the seizure under the remedial provisions for civil forfeiture found in . . . 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(c) . . . in combination with . . . the 1986 statute making it ‘unlawful for any person . . . to import or export drug paraphernalia”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 (1989);5 United States v. One 1970 Ford Pick-Up Truck, 537 F. Supp. 368, 370 (N.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Donald H. G.
See State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359, 380 , 556 A.2d 112 (“where defense counsel has sought to impeach the credibility of a complaining minor witness in a sexual abuse case, based on *427 inconsistency, incompleteness or recantation of the victim’s disclosures pertaining to the alleged incidents, the state may offer expert testimony that seeks to demonstrate or explain in general terms the behavioral characteristics of child abuse victims in disclosing alleged incidents”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S. Ct. 322 , 107 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Eppolito
“A ‘continuing offense’ is, in general, one that involves a prolonged course of conduct; its commission is not complete until the conduct has run its course.” United States v. Rivera-Ventura, 72 F.3d 277, 281 (2d Cir.1995); see generally United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181, 1190 (2d Cir.) (“Beech-Nut ”) (noting that possession of drugs with intent to distribute is a continuing crime, whereas receipt of stolen goods is a noncontinuing crime), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Carter
See State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359, 382-85 , 556 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S. Ct. 322 , 107 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Wilson F.
See State v. Evans, supra, 205 Conn. 534 -37. “[A]n alibi defense does not create a per se requirement that the state limit the times in the information more narrowly than the evidence available warrants.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359, 387 , 556 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S. Ct. 322 , 107 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Thompson
See State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359, 378 , 556 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S. Ct. 322 , 107 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
McMenemy v. City of Rochester
See Deas v. Levitt, 73 N.Y.2d 525, 532 , 541 N.Y.S.2d 958 , 539 N.E.2d 1086 (1989), cert. den. 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 (1989), disagreeing with Drogan v. Ward, 675 F.Supp. 832 (S.D.N.Y.1987). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see"
ca5 1995
See Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(2) 17 Unlike Carr, White died prior to trial of causes unrelated to the Earhart shootings, and was therefore unavailable 18 Compare United States v. Herring, 568 F.2d 1099, 1104 (5th Cir.1978) (Instruction cautioning jury to "not pay attention to anything outside the courtroom" inadequate to prevent prejudice) with United States v. Arzola-Amaya, 867 F.2d 1504, 1514 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 322 , 107 L.Ed.2d 312 (1989) (Instruction cautioning jury that "You are not permitted to read about it in the newspaper and you are not permitted to watch…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Thomas Gambino
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181, 1198 (2d Cir.) (“indefinite delay” not tolerated), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 (1989); United States v. LoFranco, 818 F.2d 276, 277 (2d Cir.1987) (per curiam); accord United States v. Clymer, 25 F.3d 824, 828 (9th Cir.1994) (continuance under § 3161(h)(8)(A) may not be open-ended).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Foy
See United States v. Arzola-Ama- *475 ya, 867 F.2d 1504 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 322 , 107 L.Ed.2d 312 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Vittorio Amuso, Also Known as Jesse, Also Known as Vic
(2×)
See United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181, 1193-94 (2d Cir.) (court did not abuse discretion by excluding evidence as cumulative and confusing where prior testimony estabfished all elements of the defense), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Karl Hofstatter (92-1836) and Michael Griffor (92-1805)
See United States v. Vance, 871 F.2d 572, 577 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 323 , 107 L.Ed.2d 313 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
See United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Carp., 871 F.2d 1181 , 1194 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Rupert Gordon
(2×)
Gordon has not carried that burden with respect to either the conspiracy count or the substantive counts. 18 In order to prove a conspiracy, the government "need not present evidence of an explicit agreement; proof of a tacit understanding will suffice." United States v. Skowronski, 968 F.2d at 247 ; see United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181, 1191 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Edgar Vargas, Nidia Campos, and Mario Campos
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence To Convict Mario of Narcotics Conspiracy In order to prove a conspiracy, the government "need not present evidence of an explicit agreement; proof of a tacit understanding will suffice." United States v. Skowronski, 968 F.2d 242, 247 (2d Cir.1992); see United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181, 1191 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Eisen
See United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181, 1199 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Eisen
See United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181, 1199 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 (1989)
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jerry Schneiderman, Jerry Ranallo, Larry Butler and Insertion Advertising Corp.
See United States v. 57,-261 Items of Drug Paraphernalia, 869 F.2d 955 , 957 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 (1989); United States v. 3520 Brighton Boulevard, 785 F.Supp. 141, 143 (D.Colo.1992); United States v. Main Street Distributing Inc., 700 F.Supp. 655, 666 (E.D.N.Y.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca9 1992
See United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181, 1194 (2d Cir.) (approving instructions on conscious avoidance and reliance on advice of counsel), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 (1989); United States v. Duncan, 850 F.2d 1104, 1118 (6th Cir.1988) (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. 3520 Brighton Boulevard
See, United States v. 57,261 Items of Drug Paraphernalia, 869 F.2d 955 , 957 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 (1989), (“The statute requires an intent to distribute the items for drug use”); Main Street Distributing, Inc., 700 F.Supp. at 666 , (“The government must prove that a defendant intended an item to be used for a drug related purpose”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rodney Featherson, A/K/A River Rat, James Edward Langston, and Ray Langston, A/K/A Big Ray
See United States v. Arzola-Amaya, 867 F.2d 1504, 1516 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 322 , 107 L.Ed.2d 312 (1989) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Joly
See State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359 , 395 n.10, 556 A.2d 112 (1985), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S. Ct. 322 , 107 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Hickey
See State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359, 386 , 556 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S. Ct. 322 , 107 L.
cited
Cited "see"
In re Noel M.
See State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359 , 556 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S. Ct. 322 , 107 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Joseph V.
See, e.g., State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359, 391 , 556 A.2d 112 (citing Hauck for proposition that, ‘‘[b]ecause the state was unable to specify with greater precision the times of the alleged incidents, it necessarily proceeded under a theory that the defendant’s conduct was in the nature of a continu- ing offense’’), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S. Ct. 322 , 107 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Douglas C. (Concurrence)
Rather, in deferring to the trial court’s discretion in allowing course of conduct charging, this court relied on purely practical considera- tions: that the charges were ‘‘clearly reasonable’’ in light of the trial testimony and that ‘‘it would have been virtually impossible to provide the many specific dates [on] which the acts constituting the offenses occurred.’’37 Id., 150–51; see also State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359, 391 , 556 A.2d 112 (reiterating pragmatic holding of Hauck), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S. Ct. 322 , 107 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Joseph V.
See, e.g., State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359, 391 , 556 A.2d 112 (citing Hauck for proposition that, ‘‘[b]ecause the state was unable to specify with greater precision the times of the alleged incidents, it necessarily proceeded under a theory that the defendant’s conduct was in the nature of a continu- ing offense’’), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S. Ct. 322 , 107 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Douglas C.
Rather, in deferring to the trial court’s discretion in allowing course of conduct charging, this court relied on purely practical considera- tions: that the charges were ‘‘clearly reasonable’’ in light of the trial testimony and that ‘‘it would have been virtually impossible to provide the many specific dates [on] which the acts constituting the offenses occurred.’’37 Id., 150–51; see also State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359, 391 , 556 A.2d 112 (reiterating pragmatic holding of Hauck), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S. Ct. 322 , 107 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Joseph B.
A defendant can gain nothing from [the claim that the pleadings are insufficient] without showing that he was in fact prejudiced in his defense on the merits and that substantial injustice was done to him because of the language of the information." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McDougal , 241 Conn. 502 , 521-22, 699 A.2d 872 (1997) ; see also State v. Spigarolo , 210 Conn. 359 , 385, 556 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 322 , 107 L.Ed.2d 312 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. R.K.C.
Id.; see also State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359, 378 , 556 A.2d 112 (“the consequences of the unique trauma experienced by minor victims of sexual abuse are matters beyond the understanding of the average person”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S. Ct. 322 , 107 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. RKC
Id.; see also State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359, 378 , 556 A.2d 112 ("the consequences of the unique trauma experienced by minor victims of sexual abuse are matters beyond the understanding of the average person"), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 322 , 107 L.Ed.2d 312 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gallo v. Suffolk County Police Department
Comm’n., supra, at 529, 375 N.Y.S.2d 300 , 337 N.E.2d 752 ; see also, Matter of Deas v. Levitt, 73 N.Y.2d 525, 532 , 541 N.Y.S.2d 958 , 539 N.E.2d 1086 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 ), nor “thereby gain a vested right to appointment to the position” (Hurley v. Board of Educ., 270 N.Y. 275, 279 , 200 N.E. 818 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hills
See e.g., United States v. Adediran, 26 F.3d 61, 63 (8th Cir.1994), and United States v. Vance, 871 F.2d 572 , 573 n. 1 (6th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 323 , 107 L.Ed.2d 313 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oliver v. United States
See, e.g., State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359 , 556 A.2d 112, 121-24 , cert, denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 322 , 107 L.Ed.2d 312 (1989); State v. Black, 537 A.2d 1154, 1156 (Me.1988); State v. Moran, 151 Ariz. 378 , 728 P.2d 248, 253-54 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. John D. Rogers
(2×)
See also United States v. DiCarlantonio, 870 F.2d 1058, 1061 (6th Cir.) ("[a]s with other conspiracies, a conviction of conspiring to obstruct commerce in violation of the Hobbs Act may be founded upon proof of an agreement to engage in conduct which would violate the statute”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 323 , 107 L.Ed.2d 313 (1989), and cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 323 , 107 L.Ed.2d 313 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gus Reynolds and Daniel Scott, Also Known as \Short Man
Nonetheless, the government "need not present evidence of an explicit agreement; proof of a tacit understanding will suffice." United States v. Skowronski, 968 F.2d 242, 247 (2d Cir.1992); see also United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181, 1191 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Tolliver
Compare United States v. Herring, 568 F.2d 1099, 1104 (5th Cir.1978) (Instruction cautioning jury to “not pay attention to anything outside the courtroom” inadequate to prevent prejudice) with United States v. Arzola-Amaya, 867 F.2d 1504, 1514 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 322 , 107 L.Ed.2d 312 (1989) (Instruction cautioning jury that “You are not permitted to read about it in the newspaper and you are 'not permitted to watch or listen to anything that is broadcast about the trial on television or radio” was "adequate safeguard!] to ensure that appellants recei…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ali
The psychology of a victim of such abuse, is in all likelihood . . . beyond the jury’s experience and knowledge. [State v. Borrelli, supra, 227 Conn.] 173-74 (explanations for why a victim of sexual abuse would recant accusation are outside jury’s experience); see also State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359, 378 , 556 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S. Ct. 322 , 107 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Robert Aulicino, Jr., David Cleary, and Louis Ruggiero, Jr.
See, e.g., United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181, 1195 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 (1989); United States v. Lanza, 790 F.2d at 1022-23 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Korolkov
United States v. Reed, 773 F.2d at 481 ; see also United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 (1989) (confirming continuing validity of “substantial contacts” test).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Henoud
United States v. Rivera, 944 F.2d 1563, 1571 (11th Cir.1991) (footnote omitted) (quoting United States v. Alvarado, 838 F.2d 311, 314 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1222 (1988)); see also United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181, 1195 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 (1989). 18 Furthermore, " 'a person can be convicted of conspiring with persons whose names are unknown as long as the indictment asserts that such other persons exist and the evidence supports their existence [and complicity].' " United States v. Price, 869 F.2d 801, 804 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting Unite…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. David Thai, Lan Ngoc Tran, Minh Do, Jimmy Nguyen, Hoang Huy Ngo, Quang Van Nguyen, and Lv Hong, A/K/A \l.v. Hong\""
While statements that are merely “idle chatter” or that are “entirely retrospective” are not in furtherance of the conspiracy, United States v. Lieberman, 637 F.2d 95, 102-03 (2d Cir.1980), statements relating past events meet the in-furtheranee test if they serve some current purpose in the conspiracy, such as to “promote[ ] cohesiveness,” United States v. Simmons, 923 F.2d 934, 945 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 2018 , 114 L.Ed.2d 104 (1991), or to provide reassurance to a eoconspirator, United States v. Rivera, 22 F.3d at 436 ; see also United States v. Beech-…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jose Vargas Acosta
See, e.g., United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181, 1191-92 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 , 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 (1989); United States v. Heinemann, 801 F.2d 86 , 92 & n. 1 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1094 , 107 S.Ct. 1308 , 94 L.Ed.2d 163 (1987); United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 63 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied 464 U.S. 840 , 104 S.Ct. 133 , 78 L.Ed.2d 128 (1983); United States v. Alessi, 638 F.2d 466, 473 (2d Cir.1980).
Spigarolo
v.
Connecticut
v.
Connecticut
No. 89-59.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 30, 1989.
493 U.S. 933
Published
Citer courts: D. Minnesota (1) · D. New Mexico (1)
Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.