green
Positive treatment
6.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Steven M. Jacob v. Harold Clarke
See Swope v. Siegel-Robert, Inc., 243 F.3d 486 , 498 (8th Cir.) (stating, "Rule 60(b) permits consideration only of facts which were in existence at the time of trial”), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 887 , 122 S.Ct. 198 , 151 L.Ed.2d 139 (2001); see, e.g., Betterbox Communications Ltd. v. BB Tech., Inc., 300 F.3d 325, 331 (3d Cir.2002) (evidence must have been in existence at the time of trial to be considered "newly discovered” under Rule 60(b)); NLRB v. lacob Decker & Sons, 569 F.2d 357, 364 (5th Cir.1978) (holding that "newly discovered” evidence must be that which existed at the time of tri…
cited
Cited "see"
John Cutts v. Lincoln Finance Co.
See Swope v. Siegel-Robert, Inc., 243 F.3d 486 , 498 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 887 , 122 S.Ct. 198 , 151 L.Ed.2d 139 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Manuel Gamez, A.K.A. Manuel Gamez-Rubio, Gustavo Gamez, Manuel Flores-Falvez, Manuel Gomez-Rubio, Manuel Flores-Galvez
See 18 U.S.C. § 1114 ("Whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government ... while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties ... shall [in the case of murder] be punished ... under section 1111"); United States v. Harris, 238 F.3d 777, 778-79 (6th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 908 , 121 S.Ct. 2254 , 150 L.Ed.2d 240 (2001) (applying the murder cross-reference of U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(c)(1) which contains identical language to U.S.S.G. § 2D 1.1 (d)(1) to …
cited
Cited "see"
Cassello v. Allegiant Bank
See Swope v. Siegel-Robert, Inc., 243 F.3d 486 , 496 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 198 , 151 L.Ed.2d 139 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Anthony S. Cassello v. Allegiant Bank
See Swope v. Siegel-Robert, Inc., 243 F.3d 486 , 496 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 198 , 151 L.Ed.2d 139 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Craighead Electric Cooperative Corporation v. City Water and Light Plant of Jonesboro, Arkansas
See Swope v. Siegelr-Robert, Inc., 243 F.3d 486, 496 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 198 , 151 L.Ed.2d 139 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Craighead Electric v. City Water & Light
(2×)
See Swope v. Siegel- Robert, Inc., 243 F.3d 486, 496 (8th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 198 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
R.V.K. v. L.L.K.
See, e.g., Swope v. Siegel-Robert, Inc., 74 F.Supp.2d 876, 911 (E.D.Mo.1999) (“Enterprise value has been defined as the amount ‘a willing buyer realistically would pay for the enterprise as a whole on the statutory valuation date.’ ”), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds, 243 F.3d 486 (8th Cir.), cert denied, 534 U.S. 887 , 122 S.Ct. 198 , 151 L.Ed.2d 139 (2001); Jeffries v. Mills, 165 Or.App. 103 , 995 P.2d 1180, 1190 (2000) (defining “enterprise value” as “earnings or investment value”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rvk v. Llk
See, e.g., Swope v. Siegel-Robert, Inc., 74 F.Supp.2d 876, 911 (E.D.Mo.1999) ("Enterprise value has been defined as the amount `a willing buyer realistically would pay for the enterprise as a whole on the statutory valuation date.'"), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds, 243 F.3d 486 (8th Cir.), cert denied, 534 U.S. 887 , 122 S.Ct. 198 , 151 L.Ed.2d 139 (2001); Jeffries v. Mills, 165 Or.App. 103 , 995 P.2d 1180, 1190 (2000) (defining "enterprise value" as "earnings or investment value").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carter
v.
Ramirez-Palmer, Warden
v.
Ramirez-Palmer, Warden
No. 01-39.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 2001.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.