green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.7 score
“when reviewing constitutional challenges to agency decisionmaking, courts make an independent assessment of the facts and the law”
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Stupak-Thrall v. United States
when reviewing constitutional challenges to agency decisionmaking, courts make an independent assessment of the facts and the law
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ramsey, Charles W.
"Where Congress has both established a right and provided exclusive remedies for its violation, we would 'encroach upon the prerogatives' of Con- gress were we to authorize a remedy not provided for by statute." Ware, 161 F.3d at 424 (quoting United States v. Frazin, 780 F.2d 1461, 1466 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 844 (1986)); see United States v. Thompson, 936 F.2d 1249, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 1991) (court may not suppress testimony for statutory violation unless Congress explicitly or implicitly provided exclusion as a remedy for a violation), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1075 (1992); see also …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles W. Ramsey
“Where Congress has both established a right and provided exclusive remedies for its violation, we would ‘encroach upon the prerogatives’ of Congress were we to authorize a remedy not provided for by statute.” Ware, 161 F.3d at 424 (quoting United States v. Frazin, 780 F.2d 1461, 1466 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 844 , 107 S.Ct. 158 , 93 L.Ed.2d 98 (1986)); see United States v. Thompson, 936 F.2d 1249, 1251-52 (11th Cir.1991) (court may not suppress testimony for statutory violation unless Congress explicitly or implicitly provided exclusion as a remedy for a violation), cert. de…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ramsey, Charles W.
"Where Congress has both established a right and provided exclusive remedies for its violation, we would 'encroach upon the prerogatives' of Con- gress were we to authorize a remedy not provided for by statute." Ware, 161 F.3d at 424 (quoting United States v. Frazin, 780 F.2d 1461, 1466 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 844 (1986)); see United States v. Thompson, 936 F.2d 1249, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 1991) (court may not suppress testimony for statutory violation unless Congress explicitly or implicitly provided exclusion as a remedy for a violation), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1075 (1992); see also …
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Andre Green
See United States v. Adams, 938 F.2d 96, 98 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1075 (1992).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Andre Green
(4×)
See United States v. Adams, 938 F.2d 96, 98 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1075 , 112 S.Ct. 974 , 117 L.Ed.2d 138 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Hurt
See State v. School, 806 S.W.2d 669 , 666 (Mo. banc 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1075 , 112 S.Ct. 976 , 117 L.Ed.2d 140 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Moore
See State v. School, 806 S.W.2d 659, 664 (Mo. banc 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1075 , 112 S.Ct. 976 , 117 L.Ed.2d 140 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Cain
See United States v. Thompson, 936 F.2d 1249 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1075 , 112 S.Ct. 975 , 117 L.Ed.2d 139 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fregoso
See United States v. Thompson, 936 F.2d 1249, 1249-50 (11th Cir.1991) (information obtained from a pen register need not be suppressed despite noncompliance with statutory requirements because governing stat utes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3121-3127 , do not require exclusion for violations), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1075 , 112 S.Ct. 975 , 117 L.Ed.2d 139 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Storey
(2×)
See State v. Schaal, 806 S.W.2d 659, 669 (Mo. banc 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1075 , 112 S.Ct. 976 , 117 L.Ed.2d 140 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Eddie Keeper
See United States v. Crook, 936 F.2d 1012, 1014 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 974 , 117 L.Ed.2d 138 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Sonya Evette Singleton
See, e.g., United States v. Benevento, 836 F.2d 60, 69-70 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1043 , 108 S.Ct. 2035 , 100 L.Ed.2d 620 (1988); United States v. Michaelian, 803 F.2d 1042, 1049-50 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Kington, 801 F.2d 733, 737-38 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1014 , 107 S.Ct. 1888 , 95 L.Ed.2d 495 (1987); see also United States v. Thompson, 936 F.2d 1249, 1251-52 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1075 , 112 S.Ct. 975 , 117 L.Ed.2d 139 (1992).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Leitner
Id. at 511 ; see also State v. School, 806 S.W.2d 659, 669 (Mo. banc 1991), cert. denied 502 U.S. 1075 , 112 S.Ct. 976 , 117 L.Ed.2d 140 (1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rydeen
v.
Quigg, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
v.
Quigg, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
No. 91-970.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 27, 1992.
Published
Citer courts: W.D. Michigan (1)
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.