green
Positive treatment
1.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1963 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1963
1994
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Corey Powell
As stated by the court in Huddleston, “[u]nder the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ analysis, the focus is on whether the evidence was obtained by exp loitation of the Fourth A mend ment illeg ality.” Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d at 674 , (emp hasis adde d) (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 , 83 S.Ct. 40 7, 417, 9 L .Ed.2d 4 41 (196 3)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Atlantic City Electric Company v. General Electric Company
See Freedman v. Philadelphia Terminals Auction Co., 301 F.2d 830 (3 Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 829 , 83 S.Ct. 40 , 9 L.Ed.2d 67 (1962). (reaffirming the so-called “middleman-consumer” distinction).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Bonjorno v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.
See also, Freedman v. Philadelphia Terminals Auction Co., 301 F.2d 830, 833 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 829 , 83 S.Ct. 40 , 9 L.Ed.2d 67 (1962).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kaakinen
v.
Peelers Company
v.
Peelers Company
No. 233.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 8, 1962.
Robert W. Beach and Paul L. O’Brien for petitioners. Ford E. Smith and A. Robert Theibault for respondent.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.