green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
13.4 score
“although it may be unusual for a person to distribute a controlled substance without at least momentarily possessing the controlled substance, it is not impossible.”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Emilio Corona-Chavez
But cf. United States v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269, 1280 (10th Cir.) (“The use of video equipment and cameras to record activity visible to the naked eye does not ordinarily violate the Fourth Amendment.”), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct. 621 , *981 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000); United States v. McIver, 186 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir.1999) (“We reject the notion that the visual observation of the site became unconstitutional merely because law enforcement chose to use a more cost-effective ‘mechanical eye’ to continue to the surveillance.”).
discussed
Cited "but see"
State v. Vreen
For example, .... [i]t is reversible error to deny a party to a jury trial the peremptory challenges to which the rules of procedure entitle him." (citations omitted)); Ford v. Norris, 67 F.3d 162, 170 (8th Cir.1995) (holding a Swain error is not subject to harmless error analysis); United States v. Annigoni, 96 F.3d 1132, 1144 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) ("The error in this casethe erroneous denial of a right of peremptory challengeis simply not amenable to harmless-error analysis."); but see United States v. Patterson, 215 F.3d 776, 781 (7th Cir.) (applying harmless error to peremptory chal…
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Allen v. Brown
the federal wiretap law does not cover video surveillance where no audio recording is made.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Houston
the use of video equipment and cameras to record activity visible to the naked eye does not ordinarily violate the fourth amendment.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Mincoff
although it may be unusual for a person to distribute a controlled substance without at least momentarily possessing the controlled substance, it is not impossible.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rocky Houston
See United States v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269, 1280-81 (10th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct. 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Karen Anderson-Bagshaw
See United States v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269, 1281 (10th Cir.2000), judgment vacated on other grounds by Jackson v. United States, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct. 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000) (holding that using pole cameras to view outdoor areas surrounding a home and easily observable by people passing by does not violate the Fourth Amendment); United States v. Jenkins, 124 F.3d 768, 773-74 (6th Cir.1997) (recognizing the difference between physical invasion of curtilage and “visual inspection from a lawful vantage point”).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Foster
See United States v. Patterson, 215 F.3d 776, 780 (7th Cir.2000) (finding same district judge’s method of selecting alternate jurors violated Rule 24(c), but finding error harmless), vacated in part on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct. 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rivera-Carrera
See United States v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269, 1291-94 (10th Cir.2000), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct. 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Minotty v. Baudo
See United States v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269, 1280 (10th Cir.2000) (holding that the Federal Wiretap Act, which prohibits the intentional interception of “any wire, oral, or electronic communication,” did not apply to silent video surveillance camera on a telephone pole outside defendant’s residence), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct. 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000); United States v. Falls, 34 F.3d 674 (8th Cir.1994) (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cesareo-Ayala
(2×)
See United States v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269, 1296 (10th Cir.) ("[C]ourts have construed the term "distribution" broadly to include other acts perpetrated in furtherance of a transfer or sale, such as arranging or supervising the delivery, or negotiating for or receiving the purchase price." (internal quotation marks omitted)), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct. 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000). [2] Although the government failed to argue in district court that Mr. Mendez's statements were not hearsay because they were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, we can affirm…
cited
Cited "see"
Bain v. IMC Global Operations, Inc.
See United States v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269, 1285 (10th Cir. 2000), rev’d on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct. 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Whitney v. State
See United States v. Patterson, 215 F.3d 776, 781 (7th Cir.) ("Martinez-Salazar ... pulls the plug on the Swain dictumL. ]”), vacated in part on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct. 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000). 6 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jackson
See Jackson v. United States, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct. 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rodriguez
See United States v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269, 1288-89 (10th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct. 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Acosta
United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641, 663 (3d Cir.1993); United States v. Ogando, 968 F.2d 146, 149 (2d Cir.1992) (stating that the court of appeals “commit[s] the decision of whether and how to utilize special interrogatories in [complex criminal] cases to the broad discretion of the district court”); see United States v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269, 1285 (10th Cir.) (stating that district court’s decision not to submit a special verdict form is reviewed for abuse of discretion), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct. 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000); United States v. Huebner, 48 F…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. John Noble
See Patterson v. United States, - U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 621, 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Mietus, 237 *956 F.3d 866, 875 (7th Cir.2001); Nance, 236 F.3d at 826 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Iris Collette Jackson
See Jackson v. United States, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jackson
See Jackson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 121 S. Ct. 621 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lykins
See United States v. Green, 548 F.2d 1261, 1270 (6th Cir.1977); see also United States v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269, 1294 (10th Cir.2000), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000); United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 698 (9th Cir.1976) (en banc).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Neftaly Rodriguez v. Nedra Chandler, Warden, Dixon Correctional Center
See, e.g., United States v. Patterson, 215 F.3d 776, 778-82 (7th Cir.2000), remanded in part on unrelated grounds, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct. 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000), after remand, 241 F.3d 912 (2001) (the difficulty of showing prejudice from an error that forces the defendant to use a peremptory challenge does not justify automatic reversal).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Danny Smith and Harry D. Lowe
See, e.g., United States v. Patterson, 215 F.3d 776, 778 (7th Cir.2000) (fifteen defendants in a decade-long conspiracy that grossed $40,000 a day), vacated in part, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct. 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000); United States v. Boyd, 208 F.3d 638, 640-41 (7th Cir.2000) (five defendants in a “continuing and wide-ranging [narcotics] conspiracy reaching back to the mid-1960s”), vacated, 531 U.S. 1135 , 121 S.Ct. 1072 , 148 L.Ed.2d 949 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Maass
See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir.) cert, granted, judgment vacated for further consideration in light of Apprendi, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct. 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000); United States v. Jones, 194 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir.1999), cert, granted, judgment vacated for further consideration in light of Apprendi 530 U.S. 1271 , 120 S.Ct. 2739 , 147 L.Ed.2d 1002 (2000); see also Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 524-39 (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (describing the Apprendi holding’s departure from prior jurisprudence).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. O'BRIEN
See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269, 1279-81 (10th Cir.2000), judgment vacated on other grounds, Jackson v. United States, 531 U.S. 1033 , 121 S.Ct. 621 , 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000) (assuming that the audio component of a video recorder is subject to Title III); Williams v. Poulos, 11 F.3d 271, 280 (1st Cir.1993) (a monitoring device consisting of " 'alligator clips attached to a microphone cable at one end’ and an ‘interface connecting [a] microphone cable to a VCR and a video camera' on the other * * * is precisely the type of intercepting device Congress intended to regulate …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Herschaft
v.
New York Board of Elections
v.
New York Board of Elections
No. 00-815.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 4, 2000.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1) · E.D. Tennessee (1)
C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner to expedite consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied.