green
Positive treatment
5.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Whiting v. United States
See Bowie v. United States, 513 U.S. 956 , 115 S.Ct. 378 , 130 L.Ed.2d 328 (1994); Dixon v. United States, 513 U.S. 994 , 115 S.Ct. 498 , 130 L.Ed.2d 408 (1994); Carmichael v. United States, 513 U.S. 994 , 115 S.Ct. 499 , 130 L.Ed.2d 408 (1994); Wadlington v. United States, 513 U.S. 1009 , 115 S.Ct. 532 , 130 L.Ed.2d 435 (1994). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Wilbur
See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Moreland (In re Moreland), 21 F.3d 102, 106 (6th Cir.1994) (“The Court read the Florida rule denying assertion of a homestead exemption against pre-existing judgment hens as impermissibly limiting a debtor’s ability to avoid a lien under section 522(f).”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 956 , 115 S.Ct. 378 , 130 L.Ed.2d 328 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sawyer
See United States v. Whiting, 28 F.3d ___ _____________ _______ 1296, 1302 (1st Cir.) (explaining that evidence must have been offered for the purpose asserted on appeal to preserve issue) (citing Tate v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 790 F.2d 10 , 12 ____ _____________________ (1st Cir. 1986)), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 378 , 498, 499, 532 _____ ______ (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sawyer
See United States v. Whiting, 28 F.3d 1296, 1302 (1st Cir.) (explaining that evidence must have been offered for the purpose asserted on appeal to preserve issue) (citing Tate v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 790 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir.1986)), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 378 , 498, 499, 532, 130 L.Ed.2d 328 , 408, 435 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. McCarthy
See United States v. Whiting, 28 F.3d 1296, 1310 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, -, -,-, 115 S.Ct. 378 , 498, 499, 532, 130 L.Ed.2d 328 , 408, 435 (1994). 2.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. McCarthy
See United States v. Whiting, 28 F.3d ___ _____________ _______ 1296, 1210 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 378 , 498, _____ ______ 499, 532 (1994). 2.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gondek
See United States v. Whiting, 28 F.3d 1296 , ___ _____________ _______ 1310-11 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 378 (1994). ____________ Something more can made of the fact that, under U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(d), Gondek is automatically subject to a two-point increase in criminal history points for his present offense because it was committed while on parole for another offense.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gondek
See United States v. Whiting, 28 F.3d 1296, 1310-11 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. ——, 115 S.Ct. 378 , 130 L.Ed.2d 328 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Dolbeare
See United States v. Whiting , 28 F.3d 1296, 1307 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 378 , 498, 499, 532 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Duda
See, e.g., Resolution Trust Corp. v. Moreland (In re Moreland), 21 F.3d 102 (6th Cir.) (a lien may not be avoided where no judicial sale or involuntary execution is pending), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 378 , 130 L.Ed.2d 328 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rostoff
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Hernandez Coplin, 24 F.3d 312, 316 (1st Cir.) (upholding as reasonable 38-month and 46-month upward departures, representing increases of 380% and 328% over the respective GSR ceilings), cert. denied , — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 378 , 130 L.Ed.2d 328 (1994); United States v. Doe, 18 F.3d 41, 48-49 (1st Cir. 1994) (upholding as reasonable a 45-month upward departure that represented a 166% increase over the GSR’s apex); United States v. Figaro, 935 F.2d 4, 8-9 (1st Cir. 1991) (upholding as reasonable an upward departure that tripled the defendant’s sentence); United S…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ethelrine C. MORELAND
v.
RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION
v.
RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION
No. 94-38.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 17, 1994.
Published
The motion of Fifth RMA Partners, Real Party in Interest for leave to substitute Fifth RMA Partners as party respondent is granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.