green
Positive treatment
4.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Concepcion v. United States
See United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 564-565 (2d Cir.) (finding that the defendant was properly convicted under Section 924(c) because he “specifically encouraged” his co-conspirators to carry guns during the robberies), cer t. denied, 519 U.S. 869 , 117 S.Ct. 183 , 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996); United States v. Medina, 32 F.3d 40, 45 (2d Cir.1994) (holding that a defendant must “directly facilitate or encourage the use or carrying of a firearm” in order to be convicted under Section 924(c)); United States v. Cambrelen, 18 F.Supp.2d 226, 230-231 (E.D.N.Y.1998) (finding that the defendan…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Samuel O. White, Luis Noel Cruz, AKA Danny Cruz
See United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 566 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 519 U.S. 869 , 117 S.Ct. 183 , 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sorrells
See United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 562 (2d Cir.) (“To show specific intent the prosecution must prove the defendant knew of the proposed.crime — suspicion that it might occur is not enough — and had an interest in furthering it.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 183 , 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Clark
See United States v. Gonzales, 79 F.3d 413, 426-27 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 183 , 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996)(addressing the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 851 (e)’s five-year statute of limitations for challenging a prior conviction used for enhancement purposes) (“Except in the limited circumstance in which the prior conviction was obtained in violation of the right to have counsel appointed, a defendant has no constitutional right to challenge prior convictions used to enhance a currently imposed sentence.”). *694 The conclusion that Custis precludes the use of a …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Reed Raymond Prior
See United States v. Gonzales, 79 F.3d 413, 426-27 (5th Cir.), — U.S. —, 117 S.Ct. 183 , 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996); United States v. Arango-Montoya, 61 F.3d 1331, 1338 (7th Cir.1995); United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1438-39 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 1147 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1106 (1995); United States v. Williams, 954 F.2d 668, 673 (11th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Reed Raymond Prior
See United States v. Gonzales, 79 F.3d 413, 426-27 (5th Cir.), 117 S. Ct. 183 (1996); United States v. Arango-Montoya, 61 F.3d 1331, 1338 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1438-39 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1147 (1995); United States v. Williams, 954 F.2d 668, 673 (11th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Eulises Tovar
"Under the inclusionary approach to the rule followed by this circuit, such evidence is admissible for any purpose other than to show a defendant's criminal propensity." United States v. Pitre, 960 F.2d 1112, 1118 (2d Cir.1992) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 565 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 183 (1996); United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 940 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lionel Reifler, Glenn B. Laken, John M. Black, Jr.
“Under 18 U.S.C. § 2 , a defendant may be convicted of aiding and abetting a given crime where the government proves that the underlying crime was committed by a person other than the defendant, that the defendant knew of the crime, and that the defendant acted with the intent to contribute to the success of the underlying crime.” United States v. Hamilton, 334 F.3d at 180 ; see, e.g., United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 562 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 869 , 117 S.Ct. 183 , 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996); United States v. Labat, 905 F.2d 18, 23 (2d Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Michael Hamilton and Nicola Messere, Also Known as Supercop
See, e.g., United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 562 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 869 , 117 S.Ct. 183 , 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996); United States v. Labat, 905 F.2d 18, 23 (2d Cir.1990); United States v. Wiley, 846 F.2d 150, 154 (2d Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. James Best
See, e.g., United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 562 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 869 , 117 S.Ct. 183 , 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996); United States v. Di Stefano, 555 F.2d 1094, 1103 (2d Cir.1977); United States v. Gallishaw, 428 F.2d 760, 763 (2d Cir.1970); see also Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 620 , 69 S.Ct. 766 , 93 L.Ed. 919 (1949) (aiding,and abetting theory supports liability when the defendant “consciously shares in” the underlying criminal act).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc.
Dow Chem., 139 F.3d at 1473-75 , 46 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1123-24. 60 In Dow Chemical, we understood the Supreme Court precedent to preempt state laws that "seek to offer patent-like protection to intellectual property inconsistent with the federal scheme." Id. at 1475, 139 F.3d 1470 , 46 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1125; see also, e.g., Cover v. Hydramatic Packing Co., 83 F.3d 1390 , 1394 & n. 3, 38 U.S.P.Q.2d 1783 , 1786 & n. 3 (Fed.Cir.1996) (construing the Supreme Court precedent in the same manner), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 183 , 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc.
In Dow Chemical, we understood the Supreme Court precedent to preempt state laws that “seek to offer patent-like protection to intellectual property inconsistent with the federal scheme.” Id. at 1475 , 139 F.3d 1470 , 46 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1125; see also, e.g., Cover v. Hydramatic Packing Co., 83 F.3d 1390 , 1394 & n. 3, 38 U.S.P.Q.2d 1783 , 1786 & n. 3 (Fed.Cir.1996) (construing the Supreme Court precedent in the same manner), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 183 , 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Frank
See, e.g., United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 566 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 183 , 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996); United States v. Araujo, 79 F.3d 7, 8 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 225 , 136 L.Ed.2d 157 (1996); United States v. Brennan, 798 F.2d 581, 589-90 (2d Cir.1986).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Andrade
v.
City of Burlingame
v.
City of Burlingame
No. 96-169.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1996.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.