green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
10.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1992 ·
…the key question under rule 4(b) is when the notice of appeal was filed, not when the time extension was granted.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
ID Security Systems Canada, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc.
a missing witness instruction is not appropriate when the witness is available to both the defense and the prosecution.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Gregory Wrice (90-5703) and Tommy Goods (90-5479)
(2×)
the key question under rule 4(b) is when the notice of appeal was filed, not when the time extension was granted.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Joseph Massimino
See United States v. Vastola, 899 F.2d 211, 232-34 (3d Cir.1990), rev’d on other grounds, 497 U.S. 1001 , 110 S.Ct. 3233 , 111 L.Ed.2d 744 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Hodge
See United States v. Vastola, 899 F.2d 211, 220-21 (3d Cir.1990), vacated on other grounds 497 U.S. 1001 , 110 S.Ct. 3233 , 111 L.Ed.2d 744 (1990) ("Several courts of appeals have construed this provision to mean that, in criminal cases, a notice of appeal filed within thirty days after the expiration of the filing period functions as a request for an extension of time ____”); see also United States v. Richmond, 120 F.3d 434, 436 (3d Cir.1997) (citing Vastola, 899 F.2d at 220-22 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS
See United States v. Vastola, 899 F.2d 211, 220-22 (3d Cir.1990) (applying Rule 4(b)(4)'s extension provision to an appeal taken under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3731 ). vacated on other grounds by 497 U.S. 1001 , 110 S.Ct. 3233 , 111 L.Ed.2d 744 (1990); United States v. Rothseiden, 680 F.2d 96, 98 (11th Cir. 1982) (concluding that Rule 4(b)(4)'s extension provision applies to government appeals taken under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 ); 16A Wright & Miller § 3950.9 at 495-99 (explaining that Rule 4(b)(4) applies to appeals taken under § 3731). 13 .
cited
Cited "see"
Stelwagon Manufacturing Co. v. Tarmac Roofing System, Inc.
See United States v. Vastola, 899 F.2d 211, 235 (3d Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 497 U.S. 1001 , 110 S.Ct. 3233 , 111 L.Ed.2d 744 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Vastola
(2×)
See United States v. Vastola, 670 F.Supp. 1244, 1282 (D.N.J.1987), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 899 F.2d 211 (3d Cir.), vacated and remanded, 497 U.S. 1001 , 110 S.Ct. 3233 , 111 L.Ed.2d 744 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Federico Giovanelli, Steven Maltese, and Carmine Gualtiere
(2×)
See United States v. Vastola, 899 F.2d 211 , 228 n. 21 (3d Cir.), vacated and remanded on other grounds, --- U.S. ---, 110 S.Ct. 3233 , 111 L.Ed.2d 744 (1990); United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 645 (11th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mario Eufrasio, A/K/A Murph, United States of America v. Santo Idone, A/K/A Sam, A/K/A Sam From Chester, A/K/A Papa, A/K/A Big Santo, United States of America v. Gary S. Iacona
See United States v. Vastola, 899 F.2d 211 , 228 n. 21 (3d Cir.), vac'd on other grounds, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 3233 , 111 L.Ed.2d 744 (1990); see also United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 645, 673-75 (11th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Eufrasio
See United States v. Vastola, 899 F.2d 211 , 228 n. 21 (3d Cir.), vac’d on other grounds, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 3233 , 111 L.Ed.2d 744 (1990); see also United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 645, 673-75 (11th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Outlaw
Neither Martin nor the prosecutor, however, stated that the defendant had ever threatened Martin or that she was seeking protection from him.19 See, e.g., id., 263 (noting that evidence had not been presented in way that suggested witness was in witness protection because of threats by defendant); see also United States v. Vas- tola, 899 F.2d 211, 236 (3d Cir.) (recommending that courts assessing prejudicial impact of witness protec- tion testimony consider whether it ‘‘specifically incul- pates the defendant as the source of threats to the witness’’), vacated on other grounds, 497 U.S…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Bermudez
See id.; see also United States v. Vastola, 899 F.2d 211, 236 (3d Cir.) (‘‘the potential for prejudice is slight [when the witness protection pro- gram] testimony only vaguely suggests that the witness was placed in the program because of threats emanating from the defendant’’), vacated on other grounds, 497 U.S. 1001 , 110 S. Ct. 3233 , 111 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Norris
See United States v. Ariza-Ibarra, 651 F.2d 2, 15-16 (1st Cir.1981); see also United States v. Vastola, 899 F.2d 211, 235 (3d Cir.) ("[A] missing witness instruction is not appropriate when the witness is available to both the defense and the prosecution."), vacated on other grounds, 497 U.S. 1001 , 110 S.Ct. 3233 , 111 L.Ed.2d 744 (1990).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Henries
See, e.g., United States v. Vastola, 899 F.2d 211, 235 (3d Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 497 U.S. 1001 , 110 S.Ct. 3233 , 111 L.Ed.2d 744 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Miller
“Courts have consistently refused to strike language in indictments that identified the name of the criminal enterprise ____” United States v. Elson, 968 F.Supp. 900, 909 (S.D.N.Y.1997); see also United States v. Vastola, 899 F.2d 211, 232 (3rd Cir.1990), vacated on other grounds, 497 U.S. 1001 , 110 S.Ct. 3233 , 111 L.Ed.2d 744 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Flores-Galarza
Compare Sasser with United States v. Vastola, 899 F.2d 211 (3d Cir.), cert. granted and vacated on other grounds, 497 U.S. 1001 , 110 S.Ct. 3233 , 111 L.Ed.2d 744 (1990) and United States v. Rothseiden, 680 F.2d 96 (11th Cir. 1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Joseph M. McDade
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Vastola, 899 F.2d 211, 231-32 (3d Cir.), vacated, 497 U.S. 1001 , 110 S.Ct. 3233 , 111 L.Ed.2d 744 (1990) (remanded for reconsideration in light of United States v. Rios, 495 U.S. 257 , 110 S.Ct. 1845 , 109 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Richard O. Bertoli Podvey, Sachs, Meanor, Catenacci, Hildner & Cocoziello, Court-Appointed Standby Counsel for Richard O. Bertoli
See, e.g., United States v. Vastola, 899 F.2d 211, 237 (3d Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 497 U.S. 1001 , 110 S.Ct. 3233 , 111 L.Ed.2d 744 (1990); Campbell, 874 F.2d at 849 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gatto
See also United States v. Vastola, 670 F.Supp. 1244, 1263 (D.N.J.1987) (exceedingly long trial hinders jury’s ability to devote its full attention to trial), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 899 F.2d 211 (3d Cir.1990), vacated on other grounds, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 3233 , 111 L.Ed.2d 744 (1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re Disbarment of Sanders
No. D-885.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 25, 1990.
Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (2) · E.D. Pennsylvania (1)
Disbarment order amended.