green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Buchanan Ex Rel. Estate of Buchanan v. Maine
See United States v. Scheffer, 463 F.2d 567, 575 (5th *60 Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 984 , 93 S.Ct. 324 , 34 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
Boekemeier v. FOURTH UNIVER. SOCIETY IN CITY OF NY
See Kheel v. Port of New York Authority, 457 F.2d 46, 48 (2d Cir.1972)(citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 , 56 S.Ct. 780 , 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936)), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 983 , 93 S.Ct. 324 , 34 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bernard v. Gerber Food Products Co.
See generally Kheel v. Port of New York Authority, 457 F.2d 46 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 983 , 93 S.Ct. 324 , 34 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972); Cowan v. Windeyer, 795 F.Supp. 535, 537 (N.D.N.Y. 1992); Leslie v. BancTec Service Corp., 928 F.Supp. 341 , 348 n. 11 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (“When necessary, the Court will use the ‘plaintiffs viewpoint’ test.”) (citing Law Audit Servs., Inc. v. Studebaker Tech., Inc., 96 Civ. 0926, 1996 WL 137492 , *3 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed
Cited "see"
Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation v. Michael D. Tarbuck
See Kheel v. Port of New York Auth., 457 F.2d 46, 49 (2d Cir.) (“[T]he jurisdictional test is applicable to that amount that flows directly and with a fair degree of probability from the litigation, not from collateral or speculative sources.”), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 983 , 93 S.Ct. 324 , 34 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972); see also Healy v. Ratta, 292 U.S. 263, 267 , 54 S.Ct. 700, 702 , 78 L.Ed. 1248 (1934) (refusing to consider the collateral effects of the judgment on other *544 claims or other plaintiffs in determining the jurisdictional amount).
cited
Cited "see"
Bergstrom v. Burlington Northern Railroad
See Kheel v. Port of New York Authority, 457 F.2d 46 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 983 , 93 S.Ct. 324 , 34 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ronald Tobin, Clifford Roger Ackerson, United States of America v. Ronald Tobin
(2×)
See United States v. Scheffer, 463 F.2d 567, 575 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 984 , 93 S.Ct. 324 , 34 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972); see also United States v. Munoz-Guerra, 788 F.2d 295, 298 (5th Cir.1986) (holding that where agents can get a warrant instead of revealing themselves and making immediate entry a foregone necessity, a warrantless search must be deemed unreasonable); but see United States v. MacDonald, 916 F.2d 766 (2d Cir.1990) (in holding a warrantless search valid where police had probable cause but precipitated the exigent circumstances by approaching the dwelling and knocking, the…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Cresta
See United States v. Scheffer, 463 F.2d 567 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 984 , 93 S.Ct. 324 , 34 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert D. Cresta, United States of America v. John J. Gillen, Jr., United States of America v. Anthony Gravallese, United States of America v. Guido Impemba, United States of America v. Gabriel Carvajal, United States of America v. Ernesto Agudelo, United States of America v. Richard T. Ford
See United States v. Scheffer, 463 F.2d 567 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 984 , 93 S.Ct. 324 , 34 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972).VIII.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Paul C. Porter, United States v. Walter G. Baker, United States v. Frederick L. Hearn, United States v. Larry Reservitz
See, United States v. Scheffer, 463 F.2d 567, 573-74 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 984 , 93 S.Ct. 324 , 34 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Walter Lewis Clark, Iii, and George R. Newton, Moody Nichols, Defendants
See United States v. Scheffer, 463 F.2d 567, 574 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 984 , 93 S.Ct. 324 , 34 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972). 18 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Richard Alan Cepulonis, United States of America v. Francis David Lovell
See United States v. Scheffer, 463 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 409 U.S. 932 , 93 S.Ct. 324 , 34 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cowan v. Windeyer
See, e.g., Kheel v. Port of New York Auth., 457 F.2d 46, 48-49 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 983 , 93 S.Ct. 324 , 34 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972); Myers v. Long Island Lighting Co., 623 F.Supp. 1076, 1078 (E.D.N.Y.1985) (citing St.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jesus Humberto Munoz-Guerra
See also United States v. Scheffer, 463 F.2d 567, 575 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 984 , 93 S.Ct. 324 , 34 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Green v. River Terminal Railway Co.
See, e.g., Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Jackson, 256 So.2d 568 (Fla.App.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1001 , 93 S.Ct. 324 , 34 L.Ed.2d 262 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ray McCarty and Genevieve McCarty v. Amoco Pipeline Company
See, e. g., Kheel v. Port of New York Authority, 457 F.2d 46 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 983 , 93 S.Ct. 324, 34 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972); Massachusetts State Pharmaceutical Ass’n v. Federal Prescription Service, 431 F.2d 130 (8th Cir. 1970); Alfonso v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 308 F.2d 724 (5th Cir. 1962). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ronald Lyles, Jesse Johnson, Carlos Holder and Benjamin Dunham, Defendants
Compare United States v. Clay, supra, 495 F.2d at 708 (“inconceivable that notification of the alteration in the instruction would have affected the tenor of the defense argument”) and United States v. Scheffer, 463 F.2d 567, 573-74 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 984 , 93 S.Ct. 324 , 34 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972) (despite late change in instructions counsel not restricted in making closing argument) with United States v. Harvill, 501 F.2d 295 (9th Cir. 1974) (change in charge prejudicial where effectiveness of defense counsel’s argument may have been impaired) and United States v. Mendoza, 4…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co.
v.
Jackson
v.
Jackson
No. 72-321.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 6, 1972.
Consideration, Took.
Published
Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.