Wiper v. Great Lakes Eng'g Works, 382 U.S. 812 (1965). · Go Syfert
Search
Wiper v. Great Lakes Eng'g Works, 382 U.S. 812 (1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
69 citation events across 27 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ghandi v. Police Department of City of Detroit (ca6, 1985-01-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ghandi v. Police Department of City of Detroit
6th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
This of course includes discussions of candidates, structures and forms of government, the manner in which government is operated or should be operated, and all such matters relating to political processes.' Mills v. Alabama, supra [384 U.S.] at 218-219, 86 S.Ct. at 1436-1437 (emphasis added)." 60 In addition, Higgins' willingness to place his name as a candidate on the U.S. Labor Party ticket went beyond an informant's role as a passive information gatherer.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ghandi v. Police Department of Detroit
6th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
This of course includes discussions of candidates, structures and forms of government, the manner in which government is operated or should be operated, and all such matters relating to political processes.’ Mills v. Alabama, supra [384 U.S.] at 218-219, 86 S.Ct. at 1436-1437 (emphasis added).” In addition, Higgins’ willingness to place his name as a candidate on the U.S. Labor Party ticket went beyond an informant’s role as a passive information gatherer.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nicholi v. State (2×)
Alaska · 1969 · confidence medium
On the contrary, Miranda says that if the defendant is told of his "right to silence," of the hazard of incrimination if he speaks, and of his right to a lawyer's presence, at public expense if he is indigent, then "An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver." 384 U.S. at p. 475, 86 S.Ct. at p. 28 [1628], 16 L.Ed.2d at p. 724.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Jerome Dimuro, United States of America v. Roland Lung, United States of America v. Victor Santarpio, United States of America v. Joseph Doherty and Thomas Hurley
1st Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Hall, 342 F.2d 849, 853 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 812 , 86 S.Ct. 28 , 15 L.Ed.2d 60 (1965). 14 Although only the composite tape was played for the jury, all the recorded conversations were received in evidence.
cited Cited "see" United States v. DiMuro
10th Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Hall, 342 F.2d 849, 853 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 812 , 86 S.Ct. 28 , 15 L.Ed.2d 60 (1965). .
cited Cited "see" In Re Special February 1971 Grand Jury, Howard Jachimowski v. James B. Conlisk, Jr., Superintendent of Police
7th Cir. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, supra (Brennan, J., dissenting), United States v. Berata, 343 F.2d 469 , 2d Cir. 1965, cert, den, 382 U.S. 812 , 86 S.Ct. 28 , 15 L.Ed.2d 60 (1965).
cited Cited "see" Erika Olund v. Russell L. Swarthout
6th Cir. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wiper v. Great Lakes Engineering Works, 340 F.2d 727, 731 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 812 , 86 S.Ct. 28 , 15 L.Ed.2d 60 (1965).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Springer v. United States
D.C. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, United States v. Hall, 342 F.2d 849, 852-53 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 812 , 86 S.Ct. 28 , 15 L.Ed.2d 60 (1965).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Enriquito Alsondo
2d Cir. · 1973 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Hall, 342 F.2d 849 , 852 n. 4 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 382 U.S. 812 , 86 S.Ct. 28 , 15 L.Ed.2d 60 (1965), where the court strongly implied that scienter is a necessary element under 18 U.S.C. § 372 , making it unlawful to “conspire ... to injure [any officer of the United States] in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office.” .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State of Maryland, Dept. of N. Res. v. Amerada Hess Corp.
D. Maryland · 1972 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Wiper v. Great Lakes Engineering Works, 340 F.2d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 1965), cert. denied 382 U.S. 812 , 86 S.Ct. 28 , 15 L.Ed.2d 60 : “[I]t is well-settled that absent a maritime status between the parties the traditional test of locality of the tort governs the question of whether maritime or state law is applicable. * * * ” 11 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wiper
v.
Great Lakes Engineering Works
No. 91.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 11, 1965.
382 U.S. 812
Harvey Goldstein and Donald C. Miller for petitioner., Leroy G. Vandeveer for respondent.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.