green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1999 ·
…where 141 the defendant has voluntarily exited the automobile and begun walking away from the automobile before the officer has initiated contact with him, the case does not fit within belton's bright-line rule.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Glasco v. Commonwealth
(2×)
where 141 the defendant has voluntarily exited the automobile and begun walking away from the automobile before the officer has initiated contact with him, the case does not fit within belton's bright-line rule.
discussed
Cited "see"
In re V.G.
(2×)
See Norris v. State, 902 S.W.2d 428 , 446 n.22 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 890 , 116 S.Ct. 237 , 133 L.Ed.2d 165 (1995); McCambridge v. State, 712 S.W.2d 499 , 501-02 n.9 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986). .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Meadows
See United States v. Meadows, 52 F.3d 318 , 1995 WL 214310 (3d Cir.) (table), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 890 , 116 S.Ct. 237 , 133 L.Ed.2d 164 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Troy Lloyd
(2×)
See United States v. Cleary, 46 F.3d 307, 309-10 (3d Cir.1995), cert. den’d, 516 U.S. 890 , 116 S.Ct. 237 , 133 L.Ed.2d 165 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Granville Amos v. Maryland Department Of Public Safety And Correctional Services
(2×)
See United States v. Presley, 52 F.3d 64, 67 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 891 , 116 S.Ct. 237 , 133 L.Ed.2d 165 (1995); Pinney Dock & Transport Co. v. Penn Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
Amos v. Maryland Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services
(2×)
See United States v. Presley, 52 F.3d 64, 67 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 891 , 116 S.Ct. 237 , 133 L.Ed.2d 165 (1995); Pinney Dock & Transport Co. v. Penn Cent.
examined
Cited "see"
Small v. State
(4×)
See Norris v. State, 902 S.W.2d 428 , 446 n. 22 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 890 , 116 S.Ct. 237 , 133 L.Ed.2d 165 (1995); McCambridge v. State, 712 S.W.2d 499, 501-02 n. 9 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Jones
(2×)
See United States v. Cleary, 46 F.3d 307 (3d Cir.) (a defendant facing a mandatory term of “special” parole must be advised that a violation can result in reincarceration to serve the remainder of the sentence and the full length *1049 of the special parole term), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 890 , 116 S.Ct. 237 , 133 L.Ed.2d 165 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rodriguez v. State
(2×)
See Norris v. State, 902 S.W.2d 428, 438 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 237 , 133 L.Ed.2d 165 (1995); Dowden v. State, 758 S.W.2d 264, 274 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); McNeal v. State, 600 S.W.2d 807, 808 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Williams v. State, 567 S.W.2d 507, 508-09 (Tex.Crim.App.1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. White
See United States v. Presley, 52 F.3d 64, 68 (4th Cir.) (holding, in a case where the defendant had only three prior convictions, that§ 924(e) "does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause"), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 237 (1995); United States v. Bates, 77 F.3d 1101, 1106 (8th Cir.) (reject- ing a challenge to "the constitutionality of using [a defendant's] prior felony convictions both to establish his substantive offense under sec- tion 922(g)(1) and to enhance his sentence under section 924(e)(1)"), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 215 (1996); United States v. Wallace, 889 F.2d 580, 584 (5th Cir. 19…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Henry Lee White
See United States v. Presley, 52 F.3d 64, 68 (4th Cir.) (holding, in a case where the defendant had only three prior convictions, that § 924(e) "does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause"), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 237 (1995); United States v. Bates, 77 F.3d 1101, 1106 (8th Cir.) (rejecting a challenge to "the constitutionality of using [a defendant's] prior felony convictions both to establish his substantive offense under section 922(g)(1) and to enhance his sentence under section 924(e)(1)"), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 215 (1996); United States v. Wallace, 889 F.2d 580, 584 (5th Cir.1989) (r…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Steven H. Carr
See United States v. Hudgins, 52 F.3d 115, 118 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 237 (1995). 6 The initial stop of Carr's vehicle was proper because the officers had a reasonable suspicion that he had been involved in a stabbing and was presently involved in marijuana trafficking.
cited
Cited "see"
Thomas G. Parry Bh-2648 v. Frederick Rosemeyer
See United States v. Cleary, 46 F.3d 307, 310 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 237 , - L.Ed.2d -(1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cotten
(2×)
See also, United States v. Hudgins, 52 F.3d 115 (6th Cir.1995) (holding that Belton permits the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile even when the defendant is arrested outside, as long as the officer made initial contact while the defendant was inside the automobile), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 891 , 116 S.Ct. 237 , 133 L.Ed.2d 165 (1995).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rivera
(4×)
Compare U.S. v. Hudgins, 52 F.3d 115, 120 (6th Cir.) (search of vehicle valid as incident to arrest when officers initiated contact while defendant still in vehicle by turning on their blue lights, pulled defendant over to side of road, asked defendant to step out of vehicle, and subsequently arrested defendant outside vehicle), cert, denied, 516 U.S. 891 , 116 S.Ct. 237 , 133 L.Ed.2d 165 (1995); United States v. Willis, 37 F.3d 313, 317 (7th Cir. 1994) (search of vehicle valid as incident to arrest when officer saw defendant sitting inside vehicle and then squatting at rear of vehicle, and de…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Porter
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Hudgins, 52 F.3d 115, 119 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 891 , 116 S.Ct. 237 , 133 L.Ed.2d 165 (1995); United States v. Strahan, 984 F.2d 155, 159 (6th.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Wanzek
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Hudgins, 52 F.3d 115, 119 (6th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 891 , 116 S.Ct. 237 , 133 L.Ed.2d 165 (1995) (refusing to apply Belton’s “bright-line” rule where the arrestee has voluntarily exited the vehicle and begun walking away from the vehicle before officers initiated contact with the arrestee); United States v. Strahan, 984 F.2d 155, 159 (6th Cir.1993) (applying Chimel immediate control test, rather than Belton where defendant was approximately 30 feet away from his vehicle when confronted and arrested by officers); Lewis v. United States, 632 A.2d 38…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Manrique v. State
(4×)
See, e.g., Norris v. State, 902 S.W.2d 428, 436-39 (Tex.Cr.App.), certdenied, 516 U.S. 890 , 116 S.Ct. 237 , 133 L.Ed.2d 165 (1995) (in capital murder prosecution for “intentional” murder of more than one person during the same criminal transaction, transferred intent statute authorized the prosecution under one theory that defendant intentionally killed the intended victim and the unintended victim by the same act), and at 451-52 (Baird, J., concurring); Aguirre v. State, 732 S.W.2d 320, 326 (Tex.Cr.App. 1987) (op. on reh’g) (in prosecution for “intentionally and knowingly” causing …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ricky Eugene Stuart
The same rationale applies to the ACCA. 3 United States v. Calloway, No. 92-4272, 1993 WL 386790 at * 2 (6th Cir. Sept. 30, 1993) (unpublished); see also United States v. Presley, 52 F.3d 64, 68 (4th Cir.) (rejecting an Ex Post Facto Clause challenge to the ACCA), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 237 (1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Reynolds
v.
United States Postal Service
v.
United States Postal Service
No. 95-5347.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 2, 1995.
Cited by 48 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Virginia (2)
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.