California State Bd. of Equalization v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 528 U.S. 1114 (2000). · Go Syfert
Search
California State Bd. of Equalization v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 528 U.S. 1114 (2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case · “Upon a finding of exceptional circumstances, such as were found in this case, a trial court may allow a witness to testify via two-way closed-circuit television when this furthers the interest of justice.”
72 citation events (60 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Duhs v. Capra (nyed, 2015-02-03)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Duhs v. Capra
E.D.N.Y · 2015 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
upon a finding of exceptional circumstances, such as were found in this case, a trial court may allow a witness to testify via two-way closed-circuit television when this furthers the interest of justice.
discussed Cited "see" Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen International Distribution Ltd.
E.D.N.Y · 2011 · signal: accord · confidence high
United States v. Garcia-Alvarez, 541 F.3d 8, 17 (1st Cir.2008); accord United States v. Gigante, 982 F.Supp. 140, 176 (E.D.N.Y.1997), aff'd, 166 F.3d 75 (2d Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1114 , 120 S.Ct. 931 , 145 L.Ed.2d 811 (2000).
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Musser
Roanoke County Cir. Ct. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gigante, 166 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1114 (2000). “[T]he Supreme Court,” the Second Circuit said in Gigante , “crafted this standard to constrain the use of one-way closed-circuit television, whereby the witness could not possibly view the defendant.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Donald
W.D.N.Y. · 2009 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord United States v. Gigante, 982 F.Supp. 140, 176 (E.D.N.Y.1997), aff'd, 166 F.3d 75 (2d Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1114 , 120 S.Ct. 931 , 145 L.Ed.2d 811 (2000).
discussed Cited "see" Kim Stevens v. State
Tex. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gigante , 166 F.3d 75, 81-82 (2nd Cir. 1999) (holding that upon a finding of exceptional circumstances, such as when a witness has a fatal illness and is part of the Federal Witness Protection Program, a trial court may allow a witness to testify via two-way closed circuit television when this furthers the interest of justice), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1114 (2000).
discussed Cited "see" Stevens v. State
Tex. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gigante, 166 F.3d 75, 81-82 (2nd Cir.1999) (holding that upon a finding of exceptional circumstances, such as when a witness has a fatal illness and is part of the Federal Witness Protection Program, a trial court may allow a witness to testify via two-way closed circuit television when this furthers the interest of justice), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1114 , 120 S.Ct. 931 , 145 L.Ed.2d 811 (2000).
discussed Cited "see" Session v. Perry (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D. Tex. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Metts v. Murphy , No. 02-2204 (1st Cir. Dec. 3, 2003) (order granting petition for rehearing en banc). [76] See, e.g., Valdespino v. Alamo Heights Ind. School Dist., 168 F.3d 848, 852-53 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1114 , 120 S.Ct. 931 , 145 L.Ed.2d 811 (2000); Cousin v. Sundquist, 145 F.3d 818, 827-29 (6th Cir.1998); Colleton County Council v. McConnell, 201 F.Supp.2d 618, 643 (D.S.C.2002). [77] 512 U.S. 997 , 114 S.Ct. 2647 , 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994). [78] Id. at 1015-16 , 114 S.Ct. 2647 . [79] Id. at 1018-19, 1023-24 , 114 S.Ct. 2647 ; see also, Barnett v. City of Chicago, 141…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Joseph Monteleone, Sr., Also Known as \Joe Monte\" (2×)
unknown court · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gigante, 166 F.3d 75, 83 (2d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1114 (2000). 44 The Second Circuit has held that statements of a government informant may still be admissible as co-conspirator non-hearsay.
cited Cited "see" Frank v. United Airlines, Inc.
9th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arnett v. California Public Employees Retirement System, 179 F.3d 690, 697 (9th Cir.1999), vacated , — - U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 930 , 145 L.Ed.2d 807 (2000).
cited Cited "see" Leslie Frank v. United Airlines, Inc.
9th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arnett v. California Public Employees Retirement System, 179 F.3d 690, 697 (9th Cir. 1999), vacated, 120 S. Ct. 930 (2000).
cited Cited "see" Arnett v. California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS)
unknown court · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Arnett, -U.S.-, 120 S.Ct. 930 , 145 L.Ed.2d 807 (2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wanda L. Adams v. Florida Power Corporation (2×)
11th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Arnett v. California Public Employees Retirement System, 179 F.3d 690 (9th Cir.1999), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 528 U.S. 1111 , 120 S.Ct. 930 , 145 L.Ed.2d 807 (2000) (plaintiffs' claim that employer's disability benefits program which discriminated on the basis of potential years of service, rather than actual years of service, adversely affected older workers stated a valid claim of disparate impact under the ADEA).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
California State Board of Equalization
v.
Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
No. 98-584.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 18, 2000.
528 U.S. 1114
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 58%
Citer courts: E.D. New York (1)

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.