green
Positive treatment
5.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc.
(2×)
See United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52,103 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 875 , 120 S.Ct. 181 , 145 L.Ed.2d 153 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Letivias Prince
(2×)
See King v. State, 989 S.W.2d 319, 333-34 (Tenn. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 181 , 145 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Barroso
(2×)
See United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 89 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 181 , 145 L.Ed.2d 153 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Elimelech Naiman
(2×)
See United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 79 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 120 S.Ct. 181 , 145 L.Ed.2d 153 (1999).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Sean Kirkham
See United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 118 (2d Cir.1999), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 181 , - L.Ed.2d - (1999). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Carr
Carr I, 424 F.3d at 231 ; see also United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 123 (2d Cir.) (“Diaz ”) (noting that there was “no error, much less clear error, in the district court’s conclusion that federal first degree murder was the most analogous federal offense” even though there was no reference to “premeditation or malice aforethought” in the state statute), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 875 , 120 S.Ct. 181 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rosario-Dominguez v. United States
See, e.g., United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 113 (2d Cir.) (counsel’s failure to present diminished capacity defense did not constitute ineffective assistance), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 875 , 120 S.Ct. 314 , 145 L.Ed.2d 153 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Llanos
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 117 (2d Cir.) (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must either object to the presentence re port or ... raise the objection at the time of sentencing.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 875 , 120 S.Ct. 181 , 145 L.Ed.2d 153 (1999); United States v. Borst, 62 F.3d 43, 47 (2d Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Christopher D. Reyes
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 89 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 875 , 120 S.Ct. 181 , 314, 315, 145 L.Ed.2d 153 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Svendsen
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 113 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 875 , 120 S.Ct. 181 , 145 L.Ed.2d 153 (1999) (finding that decision not to present a defense was a sound trial strategy that fell within the wide range of professional assistance). “[W]e have repeatedly noted our reluctance to second-guess matters of trial strategy simply because the chosen strategy was not successful.” Cuevas v. Henderson, 801 F.2d 586, 590 (2d Cir.1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Garcia
See, e.g., United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52 (2d Cir.1999) cert. denied sub. nom. 528 U.S. 875 , 120 S.Ct. 314 , 145 L.Ed.2d 153 (enterprise engaged in large-scale drug operation); United States v. Polanco, 145 F.3d 536 (2d Cir.1998) cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1071 , 119 S.Ct. 803 , 142 L.Ed.2d 664 (enterprise engaged in offenses involving drug and gun trafficking); United States v. Torres, 129 F.3d 710 (2d Cir.1997)(enter-prise engaged in acts involving drugs, *798 murder, extortion, armed robbery and firearms offenses); United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282 (2d Cir.1994)(enterprise engaged in mur…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Leone
It is true that in the cases that followed Billy-Eko we have stated that there is a “baseline aversion to resolving ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal.” Williams, 205 F.3d at 35 (quoting Salameh, 152 F.3d at 160-61 ); see also United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 114 (2d Cir.) (noting “our disinclination to grant direct review of [ineffective assistance] claim[s]”), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 120 S.Ct. 314 , 145 L.Ed.2d 153 (1999); United States v. Workman, 80 F.3d 688, 700 (2d Cir.1996) (declining to hear an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal because “the record [was…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Nachamie
The Government argues that the Second Circuit has affirmed the admission of prior bad acts to “help explain how the illegal relationship between participants in the crime developed, or to explain the mutual trust that existed between co-conspirators.” United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 334 (2d Cir.1993); see also United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 79-80 (2d Cir.1999) (evidence of prior drug dealing “informed the jury ... how illegal relationships and mutual trust developed between co-conspirators”), cer t. denied, — U.S. --, 120 S.Ct. 314 , 145 L.Ed.2d 153 (1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
American Motorists Insurance Co.
v.
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Montrose Chemical Corporation of California, Real Party in Interest)
v.
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Montrose Chemical Corporation of California, Real Party in Interest)
No. 99-159.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1999.
Published
Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.