green
Positive treatment
9.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Tyrone Jackson
See United States v. Clay, 579 F.3d 919 , 931‐32 (8th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3353 (2010); United States v. Armstrong, 554 F.3d 1159, 1163 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Cooper, 19 F.3d 1154, 1163 (7th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jackson
See United States v. Clay, 579 F.3d 919, 931-32 (8th Cir.2009), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3353 , 176 L.Ed.2d 1248 (2010); United States v. Armstrong, 554 F.3d 1159,1163 (8th Cir.2009); United States v. Cooper, 19 F.3d 1154,1163 (7th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Tyrone Jackson
See United States v. Clay, 579 F.3d 919 , 931‐32 (8th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3353 (2010); United States v. Armstrong, 554 F.3d 1159, 1163 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Cooper, 19 F.3d 1154, 1163 (7th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Collis v. Bank of America, National Ass'n
See United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302, 319 (4th Cir.2009) (providing review standard for new trial), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3353 , 176 L.Ed.2d 1245 (2010); United States v. Cheek, 94 F.3d 136, 140 (4th Cir.1996) (noting that decision of whether improper contact or communication compromised the impartiality of the jury is reviewed for a “somewhat narrowed” abuse of discretion).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Dinwiddie
See United States v. Clay, 579 F.3d 919, 933 (8th Cir.2009), cert. denied, - U.S. *838 -, 130 S.Ct. 3353 , 176 L.Ed.2d 1248 (2010).
cited
Cited "see"
Center for Family Medicine v. United States
See - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3353 , -L.Ed.2d-(2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Brandford
See United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302, 326 (4th Cir.2009) (discussing admissibility of evidence as intrinsic or under Rules 404(b) and 403), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3353 , 176 L.Ed.2d 1245 (2010); see also Blake, 571 F.3d at 348 (“Any danger of unfair prejudice was greatly minimized by the court’s instructions.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lighty
This lenient standard affords a defendant the opportunity to present mitigating evidence consistent with the Supreme Court’s directive that in capital cases the jury must “ ‘not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.’ ” Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 110 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982) (quoting Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978)) (plurality opinion) (emphasis in o…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 09-837.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 1, 2010.
176 L. Ed. 2d 1244
Published
Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted.
Same case below, 568 F.3d 675.