Michigan v. Asher, 515 U.S. 1102 (1995). · Go Syfert
Michigan v. Asher, 515 U.S. 1102 (1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
70 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 22 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: The Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation v. State of Idaho Department of Fish and Game (idd, 2022-01-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" The Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation v. State of Idaho Department of Fish and Game
D. Idaho · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. State of Or., 29 F.3d 481, 484 (9th Cir. 1994), amended, 43 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied 515 U.S. 1102 (1995).
discussed Cited "see" Gonzalez v. United States (2×)
D.P.R. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See 38 U.S.C. ch. 72. 10 In Sugrue v. Derwinski, 26 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1102 , 115 S.Ct. 2245 , 132 L.Ed.2d 254 (1995), the Second Circuit stated that courts do not acquire jurisdiction over challenges to VA benefit determinations merely because the challenges are “cloaked in constitutional terms.” The court went on to state that neither the Privacy Act, nor the Freedom of Information Act, may be used as “a rhetorical cover to attack VA benefits determinations.” Id.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Marvin Smith (2×)
7th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Rainone, 32 F.3d 1203, 1206 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1102 , 115 S.Ct. 2245 , 132 L.Ed.2d 254 (1995) (noting that the attorney-client privilege of a government witness belongs to the witness, not the government, and that the privilege is waivable); United States v. White, 743 F.2d 488, 494 (7th Cir.1984) (the government lacks standing to bring an appeal based on attorney-client privilege of the government’s witness; that privilege belongs solely to the witness who must bring the issue to the trial court himself if he believed the court was not adequately pro…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Smith, Marvin
7th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Rainone, 32 F.3d 1203, 1206 (7th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1102 (1995) (noting that the attorney-client privilege of a government witness belongs to the witness, not the government, and that the privilege is waivable); United States v. White, 743 F.2d 488, 494 (7th Cir. 1984) (the government lacks standing to bring an appeal based on attorney-client privilege of the govern- ment’s witness; that privilege belongs solely to the witness who must bring the issue to the trial court himself if he believed the court was not adequately protecting his privilege); United …
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Charles E. Porter (2×)
7th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Rainone, 32 F.3d 1203, 1208 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1102 , 115 S.Ct. 2245 , 132 L.Ed.2d 254 (1995).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Ortiz (2×)
Mich. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Asher, 203 Mich.App. 621, 623 , 513 N.W.2d 144 (1994), lv den 445 Mich. 927 , 521 N.W.2d 7 (1994), cert den 515 U.S. 1102 , 115 S.Ct. 2245 , 132 L.Ed.2d 254 (1995); People v. Zuccarini, 172 Mich.App. 11, 17 , 431 N.W.2d 446 (1988).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Crisanto Trevino
7th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Rainone, 32 F.3d 1203, 1208 (7th Cir.1994), certiorari denied, 115 S.Ct. 2245 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Ramos (2×)
Wis. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Stevens, 181 Wis. 2d 410, 441-42 , 511 N.W.2d 591 (Abrahamson, J., concurring), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S. Ct. 2245 (1995).
cited Cited "see" Brian J. Mahon v. Veterans Administration
2d Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sugrue v. Derwinski, 26 F.3d 8, 12 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2245 (1995).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Gonzalez (2×)
D. Mass. · 2001 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare State v. Stevens, 181 Wis.2d 410 , 511 N.W.2d 591 (1994), cert denied, 515 U.S. 1102 , 115 S.Ct. 2245 , 132 L.Ed.2d 254 (1995) (upholding blanket exception in felony drug cases); People v. Lujan, 174 Colo. 554, 559 , 484 P.2d 1238 (1971) (en banc) (holding that exigent circumstances pertain in “every case involving a search for narcotics”); and Henson v. State, 236 Md. 518, 523-24 , 204 A.2d 516 (1964) (same), with State v. Anonymous, 30 Conn.Supp. 197 , 308 A.2d 251 , 252 (1973) (disapproving blanket exception).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Fahie v. Department of Veterans Affairs (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, e.g., Sugrue v. Derwinski, 26 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1102 , 115 S.Ct. 2245 , 132 L.Ed.2d 254 (1995); Larrabee v. Derwinski, 968 F.2d 1497 , 1499-502 (2d Cir.1992); Pappanikoloaou v. Administrator of Veterans Admin., 762 F.2d 8, 9 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 150 , 88 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Constitutional Limitations on Federal Government Participation in Binding Arbitration
OLC · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
The courts have been vigilant in rejecting attempts by litigants to characterize as constitutional claim s, especially under the Due Process Clause, what are in fact chal­ lenges to “ the interpretation o r application o f a particular provision o f [a] statute to a particular set o f facts." Id.; see, e.g., Sugrue v. Derwinski, 26 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1994) (holding claimants cannot obtain judicial review o f “ benefits determinations merely because those challenges are cloaked in constitutional term s” ), cert, denied, 515 U.S. 1102 (1995). 230 Constitutional Limitations on Federal Gov…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Clyde C. Freeman and Nancy F. Freeman v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Madison National Bank
D.C. Cir. · 1995 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Ricker v. United States, 417 F.Supp. 133, 138-39 (D.Me.1976) (notice of default stating intent to foreclose is merely a "threat of foreclosure,” not adequate notice of foreclosure) with Vail v. Brown, 841 F.Supp. 909, 914-15 (D.Minn.) (notice of default stating intent to foreclose is adequate notice of foreclosure, even if date and time of foreclosure sale are not specified), aff'd, 39 F.3d 208 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2245 , 132 L.Ed.2d 254 (1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Michigan
v.
Asher
No. 94-78.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 30, 1995.
515 U.S. 1102
Published

Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.