green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
9.8 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1994 ·
…a defendant must object at trial to preserve an objection on appeal; the overruling of a motion in limine does not suffice.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Jesus Favala v. Cumberland Engineering Company, a Division of John Brown Incorporated, a Corporation
Co., 979 F.2d 1187, 1200 (7th Cir.1992) (citing cases); see also Stutzman v. CRST, Inc., 997 F.2d 291, 298 (7th Cir.1993) (citing Cook v. Hoppin, 783 F.2d 684 , 691 n. 2 (7th Cir.1986)); but see United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1360 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991).
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Farhad Bakhtiar and Anthony McDonald
But see United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1362-64 (7th Cir.) (exception firmly rooted as to statements not made to limit declarant’s exposure), cer t. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991); United States v. Seeley, 892 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1989), citing *978 Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d at 766 (exception “would seem to be ‘firmly rooted.’ ”).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Clausen v. Sea-3 Inc.
a defendant must object at trial to preserve an objection on appeal; the overruling of a motion in limine does not suffice.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Clausen v. Sea-3 Inc.
a defendant must object at trial to preserve an objection on appeal; the overruling of a motion in limine does not suffice.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Pierre
See id., 369 (“speaking to acquaintances unconnected to law enforcement makes statements eminently trustworthy”), citing United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1362-63 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 916 , 112 S. Ct. 321 , 116 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Swinton
See United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1348 (7th Cir.) (previous government informant was acting as state agent because law enforcement had instructed him “to collect information”), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 916 , 112 S. Ct. 321 , 116 L.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Aracelis Paredes
See United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1352-53 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 916 , 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Marcus Jones
See United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1352 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 321 (1991). 3 In a supplemental brief, filed pro se, Jones contends that the government engaged in improper argument in its closing statements.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Brett Cronkhite
See United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1352 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 321 (1991); see also United States v. Khorrami, 895 F.2d 1186, 1194 (7th Cir.) (in reviewing the admissibility of relevant, potentially prejudicial evidence, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to proponent, maximizing the probative and minimizing the prejudicial), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Edward B. Betts, Randy J. Lane, and Judy K. Lane
See United States v. Kramer, 955 F.2d 479, 492-93 (7th Cir.1992) (Cudahy, J., concurring), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 595 , 596, 121 L.Ed.2d 533 (1992) 8 As the government points out, we relied on the doctrine of chances in United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1350 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 651, 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991), to sustain the admission of evidence that a defendant charged with defrauding an insurance company by murdering his business partner and collecting the proceeds of her life insurance had previously murdered his wife and col…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert E. Johnson, United States of America v. Charles Edwin Nottingham, United States of America v. Dee Dee Romo, A/K/A Deidre Harrell, United States of America v. Gerald Lee Carroll
Taylor, 800 F.2d at 1016 ; see United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1357 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991); Surridge, 687 F.2d at 254 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Johnson
Taylor, 800 F.2d at 1016 ; see United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1357 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991); Surridge, 687 F.2d at 254 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Anthony Tobin Andrews, United States of America v. Cedric Arthur West
See United States v. Stephenson, 924 F.2d 753, 763-64 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 63 , and cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 321 (1991); United States v. Walton, 908 F.2d 1289, 1298-99 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 906 , and cert. denied, 498 U.S. 989 , and cert. denied, 498 U.S. 990 (1990). 6 Andrews challenges the amount of drugs the district court attributed to him at sentencing.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Palma-Rodriguez
See United States v. Gutierrez, 931 F.2d 1482 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Rene C. Martinez, Kenneth W. Noel, and Steven T. Garcia
(2×)
Fed.R.Evid. 402; see United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1351 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991) (evidence that increases probability that defendant committed crime is relevant).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gary D. Martin, United States of America v. Robert E. Reed
See United States v. Stephenson, 924 F.2d 753, 758 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert Alan Starr
See United States v. Stephenson, 924 F.2d 753 (8th Cir.), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 63 , 116 L.Ed.2d 39 and — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Frank Church, Carl Louis Coppola
See United States v. Gutierrez, 931 F.2d 1482, 1488 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Rivera
Ed. 2d 213 (1970); see also United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1362-63 (7th Cir.) (speaking to acquaintances unconnected to law enforcement makes statements eminently trustworthy), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 916 , 112 S. Ct. 321 , 116 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hills
See e.g., United States v. Platero, 72 F.3d 806, 813-814 (10th Cir.1995) and United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1351-1352 (7th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 916 , 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rutherford
See also United States v. Gutierrez, 931 F.2d 1482 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 916 , 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991); United States v. Kerris, 748 F.2d 610, 613-14 (11th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. D.F.
See also United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1355-56 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 916, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991). 17 .A similar analysis has been employed when the questioner is not a government employee but may have undertaken the questioning to fulfill a governmental obligation because of a special relationship imposed by law or contract.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. State
Compare United States v. York, 7th Cir., 933 F.2d 1343, 1363-64 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991) (firmly rooted); United States v. Seeley, 1st Cir., 892 F.2d 1, 2 (1989) (same) with United States v. Flores, 5th Cir., 985 F.2d 770, 783 (1993) (not firmly rooted); Olson v. Green, 8th Cir., 668 F.2d 421, 428 , cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1009 , 102 S.Ct. 2303 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1305 (1982) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Eric Clausen v. Sea-3, Inc., Storage Tank Development Corporation
Fusco v. General Motors Corp., 11 F.3d 259, 262 (1st Cir.1993); see, e.g., United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1360 (7th Cir.) (holding that “ ‘[a] party whose motion in limine has been overruled must object when the error the party sought to prevent is about to occur at trial’ ” (quoting United States v. Roenigk, 810 F.2d 809, 815 (8th Cir.1987))), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991); United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948, 966 (11th Cir.1990) (“A defendant must object at trial to preserve an objection on appeal; the overruling of a motion in limine doe…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hernandez v. State
See also U.S. v. Gutierrez, 931 F.2d 1482 (11th Cir.), cert. den., — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991); United States v. Iglesias, 915 F.2d 1524 (11th Cir.1990), reh. den., 923 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Thompson
See, e.g., United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343 , 1363- ___ ____ _____________________ 64 & n.5 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 321 (1991). _____________ Thus, the constitutional issue merges into the evidentiary question. -35- -35- defendants in this conspiracy, it's excluded against them.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kenneth Innamorati, United States v. William Thompson, United States v. James Grady, A/K/A the Rebel, United States v. Robert Demarco, Sr., United States v. William Letters, United States v. Robert Demarco, Jr., United States v. Phillip Bargalla, A/K/A Flip, United States v. James Litterio, A/K/A Mickey, United States v. John Boisoneau, United States v. Joseph Gilberti
See, e.g., United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343 , 1363-64 & n. 5 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Innamorati
See, e.g., United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343 , 1363-64 & n. 5 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Frye
(2×)
Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 , 84 S.Ct. 1199 , 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964); See also United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1355 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Cook
Moreover, the first circuit has stated that the hearsay “exception for declarations against penal interest would seem to be ‘firmly rooted’. . . .” United States v. Seeley, 892 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989); see also United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1363 (7th Cir. 1991) (exception for statement against penal interest firmly rooted, unless made in context of confession) cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 321 (1991); United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769, 776 (2d Cir. 1983) (declaration against penal interest within firmly rooted hearsay exception) cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Miller v. Miller
See e.g., United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 321 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991). 5 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
York
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 91-5632.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 15, 1991.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
Citer courts: First Circuit (2)
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.