Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. TA Instruments, Inc., 531 U.S. 1013 (2000). · Go Syfert
Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. TA Instruments, Inc., 531 U.S. 1013 (2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
146 citation events (146 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Roebuck v. State (mdctspecapp, 2002-12-23)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Roebuck v. State (2×)
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
Moreover, the “extent to which a declarant expects his statement to subject him to criminal liability also reflects on the statement’s reliability.” Camacho, 163 F.Supp.2d at 307 ; see United States v. Moskowitz, 215 F.3d 265, 269 (2d Cir.) (concluding that plea allocution was reliable because declarant was subjected to incarceration), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1014 , 121 S.Ct. 571 , 148 L.Ed.2d 489 (2000).
examined Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Robins (4×)
Pa. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally United States v. Moskowitz, 215 F.3d 265, 269 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1014 , 121 S.Ct. 571 , 148 L.Ed.2d 489 (2000) (emphasizing the reliability of a plea allocution, as it directly subjected the declarant to a lengthy prison term).
discussed Cited "see" Laplace v. Demarco, No. Cv 01-0095009 S (Oct. 16, 2002) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. Dickel , 213 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1013 , 121 S.Ct. 571 , 148 L.Ed.2d 489 (2000).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Chan (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
In accord with the Supreme Court’s holding in Williamson v. United States, however, only those portions of the plea allocution which are self-inculpatory are admissible under Rule 804(b)(3), 512 U.S. 594, 600 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994); see United States v. Moskowitz, 215 F.3d 265, 269 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1014 , 121 S.Ct. 571 , 148 L.Ed.2d 489 (2000); see also Winley, 638 F.2d at 562 & n. 2 (noting that the guilty plea allocutions of each co-defendant which were redacted to omit any reference to the defendant on trial fully qualified as declarations against penal…
discussed Cited "see" Slaughter v. Parker (2×)
W.D. Ky. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sanders v. Freeman, 221 F.3d 846 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1014 , 121 S.Ct. 571 , 148 L.Ed.2d 489 (2000); Workman v. Bell, 178 F.3d 759 (6th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 913 , 120 S.Ct. 264 , 145 L.Ed.2d 221 (1999).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Frederick Tropeano, and Marlon Tropeano, David Barroso, Jr. (2×)
2d Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Moskowitz, 215 F.3d 265, 268 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 571 , 148 L.Ed.2d 489 (2000).
discussed Cited "see" Hill v. Shell Oil Co. (2×)
N.D. Ill. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Springfield Terminal Railway Co., 210 F.3d 18, 25-26 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 571 , 148 L.Ed.2d 489 (2000); Davidson v. Enstar Corp., 848 F.2d 574, 577-78 (5th Cir.1988).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Gurmeet Singh Dhinsa (3×)
2d Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Moskowitz, 215 F.3d 265, 268 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 571 (2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Tsoulas v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston (2×)
D. Me. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
Bank v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 768 F.2d 5, 11-12 (1st Cir.1985); see also Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs v. Springfield Terminal Ry., 210 F.3d 18, 31 (1st Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1014 , 121 S.Ct. 571 , 148 L.Ed.2d 489 (2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ayer v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston (2×)
D. Me. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Docket # 11, 15, 19. “[T]o stipulate a record for decision allows the judge to decide any significant issues of material fact that he discovers.” Boston Five Cents Savings Bank v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 768 F.2d 5, 11-12 (1st Cir.1985); see also Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs v. Springfield Terminal Ry., 210 F.3d 18, 31 (1st Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1014 , 121 S.Ct. 571 , 148 L.Ed.2d 489 (2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Perkin-Elmer Corp.
v.
TA Instruments, Inc.
No. 00-541.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 27, 2000.
531 U.S. 1013
Published

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.