green
Positive treatment
2.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Cannon v. US Acoustics Corporation
But see, Fleischer v. A.A.P., Inc., 163 F. Supp. 548 (S.D.N.Y.1958), appeal dismissed, 264 F.2d 515 (2d Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1002 , 85 S.Ct. 68, 3 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1959); United States v. Standard Oil Company, 136 F.Supp. 345 (S.D.N.Y.1955). 30 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Giroux v. Town of Danbury
See Beck, 379 U.S. at 91 (defining the inquiry a s : “whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,022 United States of America v. Sidney E. Porter, United States of America v. John M. Harrison, United States of America v. Henry F. Harrison, United States of America v. John R. Schaefer, United States of America v. Carl F. Newland
See Little v. United States, 331 F.2d 287 (8 Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 834 , 85 S.Ct. 68 , 13 L.Ed.2d 42 ; United States v. Wolfson, 405 F.2d 779 (2 Cir. 1968), cert. denied 394 U.S. 946 , 89 S.Ct. 1275 , 22 L.Ed.2d 479 (1969). 25 In Bliss v. United States, 354 F.2d 456 (8 Cir. 1966), cert. denied 384 U.S. 963 , 86 S.Ct. 1592 , 16 L.Ed.2d 675 , Judge Vogel of this court, citing United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75 , 83 S.Ct. 173 , 9 L.Ed.2d 136 (1962), held that under the mail fraud statute the 'use of the mails, even after money has been obtained, is within the reach of the statute i…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Porter
See Little v. United States, 331 F.2d 287 (8 Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 834 , 85 S.Ct. 68 , 13 L.Ed.2d 42 ; United States v. Wolfson, 405 F.2d 779 (2 Cir. 1968), cert. denied 394 U.S. 946 , 89 S.Ct. 1275 , 22 L.Ed.2d 479 (1969).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
YORTY
v.
JORDAN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
v.
JORDAN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
No. 250.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 12, 1964.
Roger Arnebergh, Bourke Jones and James A. Doherty for appellants., Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, Charles E. Corker and Charles A. Barrett, Assistant Attorneys General, and Sanford N. Grushin, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
Published
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.