green
Positive treatment
8.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jimenez
See United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 567 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 925 , 112 S.Ct. 340 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Angleton v. State
(2×)
See State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376 , 814 P.2d 333, 343-46 , cert. denied, 502 U.S. 926 , 112 S.Ct. 343 , 116 L.Ed.2d 282 (1991) (tape recording of double murder made by one of the victims was circumstantially authenticated under Rule 901 by physical evidence that the manner of death was consistent with the events heard on the tape); People v. Berkey, 437 Mich. 40 , 467 N.W.2d 6, 9-13 (1991) (where victim recorded conversations with ex-husband shortly before he successfully paid another to kill her, the tapes were authenticated under Rule 901 merely by the identification of the voices alone).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bissell
See United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 925 , 112 S.Ct. 340 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991); United States v. Sandini, 888 F.2d 300, 305 (3d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1089 , 110 S.Ct. 1831 , 108 L.Ed.2d 959 (1990); United States v. Friedman, 854 F.2d 535, 563 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1004 , 109 S.Ct. 1637 , 104 L.Ed.2d 153 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bissell
See United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 925 , 112 S.Ct. 340 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991); Sandini, 888 F.2d at 305 ; United States v. Friedman, 854 F.2d 535, 563 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1004 , 109 S.Ct. 1637 , 104.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Spears
See State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 396 , 814 P.2d 333, 353 , cert. denied, 502 U.S. 926 , 112 S.Ct. 343 , 116 L.Ed.2d 282 (1991). g.
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Huey P. Grey and Ann P. Grey
(4×)
See United States v. Kelley, 929 F.2d 582, 586 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 926 , 112 S.Ct. 341 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles William Kunzman
(2×)
See United States v. Kelley, 929 F.2d 582, 586 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 926 , 112 S.Ct. 341 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991) (requirement under section 1957 that the transaction be “in or affecting interstate commerce” must be met.to confer jurisdiction on federal courts); Kerbs v. Fall River Indus., Inc., 502 F.2d 731, 737 (10th Cir.1974) (interstate nexus is required to confer subject matter jurisdiction over securities fraud actions). 1.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Idone
See United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 340 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Santo Idone, A/K/A Sam, A/K/A Sam From Chester, A/K/A Papa, A/K/A Big Santo. Santo Idone
See United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 340 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harold Glass v. Philadelphia Electric Company
(2×)
See United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 572 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 340 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Copple
See United States v. Kelley, 929 F.2d 582, 585 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 341 , 116 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Copple, John R., an Individual Mechem Financial Incorporated, a Corporation, John R. Copple
See United States v. Kelley, 929 F.2d 582, 585 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 341 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991); United States v. King, 860 F.2d 54, 55 (2d Cir.1988), cer t.. denied, 490 U.S. 1065 , 109 S.Ct. 2062 , 104 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989). *545 But that does not mean that evidence of loss was irrelevant.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Southwest Bus Sales, Inc., United States of America v. Gary Hewitt Bennett, United States of America v. Randall Parker Bennett
See United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553 , 570 & n. 20 (3d Cir.) (recognizing that other courts have applied Rule 8(b) to cases involving multiple defendants, but stating that it, "seems to us that contrary to the jurisprudence in other circuits, when a joinder of offenses charged against the same defendant is challenged, the literal meaning of the Rule [8] requires application of Rule 8(a), irrespective of whether multiple defendants are involved in the case”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 340 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991); see also United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir.), c…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. James Price, A/K/A \Squeezie
See United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 567-68 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 340 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). 10 Cobb's claim that all 26 indicted co-conspirators should have been tried together is unusual.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Price
See United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 567-68 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 340 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Reginald D. McGlory Melvin Hauser, Norman Gomez, A/K/A Chubbs, Roland Slade, Norma Jean Pruitt, Vira Kulkivit, A/K/A Wee, Yongyos Thauthong, Willie J. Purdom and Charles Cotton. Vira Kulkovit, United States of America v. Reginald D. McGlory Melvin Hauser, Norman Gomez, A/K/A Chubbs, Roland Slade, Norma Jean Pruitt, Vira Kulkivit, A/K/A Wee, Yongyos Thauthong, Willie J. Purdom and Charles Cotton. Melvin Hauser, United States of America v. Reginald D. McGlory Melvin Hauser, Norman Gomez, A/K/A Chubbs, Roland Slade, Norma Jean Pruitt, Vira Kulkivit, A/K/A Wee, Yongyos Thauthong, Willie J. Purdom and Charles Cotton. Reginald D. McGlory United States of America v. Reginald D. McGlory Melvin Hauser, Norman Gomez, A/K/A Chubbs, Roland Slade, Norma Jean Pruitt, Vira Kulkivit, A/K/A Wee, Yongyos Thauthong, Willie J. Purdom and Charles Cotton. Charles Cotton
See United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 340 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991); United States v. Sebetich, 776 F.2d 412, 427 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 725 , 98 L.Ed.2d 673 (1988). 165 Significantly, even if the district court abused its discretion in denying the severance motion, the defendant must pinpoint "clear and substantial prejudice" resulting in an unfair trial.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. McGlory
See United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 340 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991); United States v. Sebetich, 776 F.2d 412, 427 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 725 , 98 L.Ed.2d 673 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Nick Stavroulakis
See United States v. Kelley, 929 F.2d 582, 585 (10th Cir.) (“ultimate success or failure of the scheme is immaterial” to conviction for bank or mail fraud), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 341 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991); United States v. King, 860 F.2d 54, 55 (2d Cir.1988) (per curiam) (“ultimate success” of scheme not necessary element of crime of mail fraud), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1065 , 109 S.Ct. 2062 , 104 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 8957 HELLER FINANCIAL, INC v. GRAMMCO COMPUTER SALES, INC. and Donald B. Grammer, d/b/a DBG Leasing
(2×)
See Vild v. Visconsi, 956 F.2d 560 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 832 , 113 S.Ct. 99 , 121 L.Ed.2d 59 (1992) 16 United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 564-65 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 925 , 112 S.Ct. 340 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991) 17 Id. at 565 (citing H.J.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mariani
“The purpose of the bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the nature of the charges brought against him [so that he may] adequately prepare his defense, to avoid surprise during the trial and to protect him against a second prosecution for an inadequately described offense.” United States v. Addonizio, 451 F.2d 49, 63-64 (3d Cir.1971) (quoting United States v. Tucker, 262 F.Supp. 305, 308 (S.D.N.Y.1966)), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 936 , 92 S.Ct. 949 , 30 L.Ed.2d 812 (1972); see also United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 575 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 925 , 112 S.Ct. 340 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. James Laurenzana
(2×)
See United States v. Koller, 956 F.2d 1408, 1412 (7th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Kelley, 929 F.2d 582, 586 (10th Cir.1991), certiorari denied, 502 U.S. 926 , 112 S.Ct. 341 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (“[T]he ‘in or affecting interstate commerce’ requirement has been broadly read and ... a ‘minimal effect’ on interstate commerce is sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction.”). 1 *693 In United States v. Kaufmann, 985 F.2d at 892 n. 3, this Court found that a transaction which involved the sale of an automobile fit within the definition of “financial transaction” in the money …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ashley
This Court declines to follow a line of cases holding that Rule 8(a) governs in the atypical situation (present in the case at bar) where “a defendant in a multiple defendant case named in one count seeks to sever other counts in which he alone is charged...." United States v. Biaggi, 705 F.Supp. 852, 858 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (emphasis added) (Motley, J.) (quoting United States v. Clemente, 494 F.Supp. 1310, 1315 (S.D.N.Y.1980) (Sands, J.) (in turn citing United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124, 1158 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 976 , 94 S.Ct. 3184 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1146 (1974))); see also United …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rayful Edmond, III
Although a hearing might be required where the need for juror anonymity is doubtful, here the allegations in the indictment and other submissions to the court adequately justified the use of precautionary measures, and the District Court was not obliged to conduct “a trial within a trial to determine whether the alleged wrongdoing could be proven to have occurred.” Thomas, 757 F.2d at 1365 ; see also United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 574 (3d Cir.) (“A trial court has discretion to permit an anonymous jury without holding an evidentiary hearing on juror safety, if the court believe…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Sessa
Id.; see also United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 340 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Thomas Howard Gilbreath
This court has held that a restitution order “must be consistent with a defendant’s ability to pay.” United States v. McIlvain, 967 F.2d 1479, 1481 (10th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Kelley, 929 F.2d 582, 587 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 112 S.Ct. 341 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991); United States v. Dunning, 929 F.2d 579, 581 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 224 , 116 L.Ed.2d 182 (1991); United States v. Clark, 901 F.2d 855, 857 (10th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Pamela Sue Hollis, United States of America v. William T. \Tom\" Hollis"
What might have later happened as to repayment is not material and could not be a defense.”), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 913 , 93 S.Ct. 962 , 35 L.Ed.2d 278 (1973); see also United States v. Kelley, 929 F.2d 582, 585 (10th Cir.) (bank fraud does not require a showing of actual pecuniary lops), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 341 , 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). *1453 While the proposed instruction did not state that repayment per se is a defense, it implied that repayment might “negate” the specific intent to defraud.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Roca-Suarez
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 91-482.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 21, 1991.
Cited by 85 opinions | Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.