green
Positive treatment
4.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Pelella
See United States v. Dinwiddie , 76 F.3d 913 , 925 (8th Cir.) (considering "whether the threat was communicated directly to [the] victim"), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1043 , 117 S.Ct. 613 , 136 L.Ed.2d 538 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Interactive Digital Software Association v. St. Louis County, Missouri
See United States v. Dinwiddie, 76 F.3d 913, 921 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1043 , 117 S.Ct. 613 , 136 L.Ed.2d 538 (1996); Video Software Dealers Ass'n v. Webster, 968 F.2d 684 , 689 (8th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Interactive Digital Software Ass'n v. St. Louis County
See United States v. Dinwiddie, 76 F.3d 913, 921 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1043 , 117 S.Ct. 613 , 136 L.Ed.2d 538 (1996); Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Webster, 968 F.2d 684, 689 (8th Cir.1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Parker v. Turpin
See Parker v. Zant, 519 U.S. 1043 , 117 S.Ct. 613 , 136 L.Ed.2d 538 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Scott
See United States v. Dinwiddie, 76 F.3d 913, 925 (8th Cir.), cert. denied — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 613 , 136 L.Ed.2d 538 (1996). 9.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ramsey, Charles W.
Cir. 1996) (no bar in this Circuit to "dual testimony as both a fact and expert witness"); see also United States v. Anderskow, 88 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir.) (no prejudice in light of overwhelm- ing evidence of defendant's predisposition and guilt and fact that Government did not rely on challenged opinion testimony during summation), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 613 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Charles W. Ramsey
See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (in plain error cases appellant bears “burden of persuasion with respect to prejudice”); United States v. Catlett, 97 F.3d 565, 571 (D.C.Cir.1996) (no bar in this Circuit to “dual testimony as both a fact and expert witness”); see also United States v. Ander skow, 88 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir.) (no prejudice in light of overwhelming evidence of defendant’s predisposition and guilt and fact that Government did not rely on challenged opinion testimony during summation), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.C…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ramsey, Charles W.
Cir. 1996) (no bar in this Circuit to "dual testimony as both a fact and expert witness"); see also United States v. Anderskow, 88 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir.) (no prejudice in light of overwhelm- ing evidence of defendant's predisposition and guilt and fact that Government did not rely on challenged opinion testimony during summation), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 613 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Randall A. Terry v. Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States of America
Like the Eleventh Circuit, we find no support for “the proposition that Congress’ Commerce Clause authority extends only to the regulation of commercial actors, and not private individuals who interfere with commercial activities in interstate commerce.” Cheffer, 55 F.3d at 1520 n. 6; see also United States v. Dinwiddie, 76 F.3d 913, 920 (8th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 613 , 136 L.Ed.2d 538 (1996); Wilson, 73 F.3d at 684-85 (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Honn
v.
R. J. Steichen & Co.
v.
R. J. Steichen & Co.
No. 96-760.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 16, 1996.
Published
Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.