green
Positive treatment
4.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Boultinghouse v. Hall
See Smith v. Stewart, 140 F.3d 1263, 1273 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 929 , 119 S.Ct. 336 , 142 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998) (counsel not ineffective in eliciting defendant’s testimony concerning prior convictions, where convictions were related to alibi defense and counsel's questioning was "a way of drawing the sting from any impeachment of Smith with those crimes when he testified”). 20 .
cited
Cited "see"
Zurich Insurance v. Sunclipse, Inc.
See Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138 F.3d 277, 291 (7th Cir.1998), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 336 , 142 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pebble Beach Company Sea Pines Company Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross v. Tour 18 I Limited, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Resorts of Pinehurst Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Golforms Incorporated, Tour 18 I Limited, Defendant-Appellant-Cross
See Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138 F.3d 277, 286 (7th Cir.1998) (noting that the Sears-Compco and Bonito Boats holdings have no effect on the scope of federal trademark or unfair-competition law), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 336 , --- L.Ed.2d ---- (1998) (No. 98-179). 61 Second, the federal trademark laws are "other federal statutory protection," and their protection of product designs and configurations does not conflict with the federal patent laws or the Intellectual Property Clause.
discussed
Cited "see"
Goren v. New Vision International, Inc.
See Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138 F.3d 277, 301 (7th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 119 S.Ct. 336 ,-L.Ed.2d -(1998) (No. 98-179); see also United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir.1991) (stating that ”[w]e repeatedly have made clear that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived”), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S.Ct. 141 , 116 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Goren v. New Vision International
See Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138 F.3d 277, 301 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 336 , --- L.Ed.2d ---- (1998) (No. 98-179); see also United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir.1991) (stating that "[w]e repeatedly have made clear that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived"), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S.Ct. 141 , 116 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991) 3 The facts alleged in Ms. Goren's complaint are different from those we evaluated in MCM Partners, Inc. v. Andrews-Bartlett & Assocs., Inc.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert Douglas Smith v. Terry Stewart, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections
We have explained that, “where counsel is on notice that his client may be mentally impaired, counsel’s failure to investigate his client’s mental condition as a mitigating factor in a penalty phase hearing, without a supporting strategic reason, constitutes deficient performance.” Hendricks v. Calderon, 70 F.3d 1032, 1043 (9th Cir.1995); see also Smith v. Stewart, 140 F.3d 1263, 1269 (9th Cir.1998) (concluding that counsel was deficient for failing to “perform any real investigation into mitigating circumstances, even though that evidence was rather near the surface”), cert. denie…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9096, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,770 Anthony Cornell Bean, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Arthur Calderon, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee
See, e.g., Smith v. Stewart, 140 F.3d 1263, 1268 (9th Cir.) ("It is undisputed that trial counsel presented no mitigating evidence at the presentencing hearing ...."), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 336 , 142 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998); Correll v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 1404, 1412 (9th Cir.) ("[T]he transcript of the pre-sentencing hearing reveals that Correll's attorney failed to call witnesses or present any evidence at the pre-sentencing hearing, although he stated on the record that he knew of people who were willing to testify on Correll's behalf."), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 450 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bean v. Calderon
See, e.g., Smith v. Stewart, 140 F.3d 1263, 1268 (9th Cir.) (“It is undisputed that trial counsel presented no mitigating evidence at the pre-sentencing hearing .... ”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 336 , 142 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998); Correll v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 1404, 1412 (9th Cir.) (“[T]he transcript of the pre-sentencing hearing reveals that Correll’s attorney failed to call witnesses or present any evidence at the pre-senteneing hearing, although he stated on the record that he knew of people who were willing to testify on Cor-rell’s behalf.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES
v.
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES
v.
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES
No. 98-130.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 13, 1998.
119 S. Ct. 336
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.