green
Positive treatment
5.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Beckwith
See People v. McInnis, 6 Cal.3d 821, 825-826 , 100 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 494 P.2d 690 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1061 , 93 S.Ct. 562 , 34 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972)(booking photograph from unrelated arrest not suppressed, because no evidence of exploitation or other improper conduct, and no link other than coincidence between that arrest and offense being tried).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Manning
See People v. McInnis, 6 Cal. 3d 821, 825-826 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1061 (1972) 3 (booking photograph from unrelated arrest not suppressed, because no evidence of exploitation or other improper conduct, and no link other than coincidence between that arrest and offense being tried).
discussed
Cited "see"
Central Bank Denver, N.A. v. Mehaffy, Rider, Windholz & Wilson, Attorneys at Law
(2×)
See University of Illinois Foundation v. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories Inc., 465 F.2d 380 (7th Cir.1972), cert, denied, 409 U.S. 1061 , 93 S.Ct. 559 , 34 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972); see also IB Moore’s Federal Practice ¶0.441[2] (2d ed.1996) (“the fact that the prior judgment was simply incorrect does not affect its conelusiveness”); 18 C.
discussed
Cited "see"
McKinney v. Fairchild International, Inc.
See Western Natural Gas Co. v. Cities Service Gas Co., 507 P.2d 1236 (Okl.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1052 , 93 S.Ct. 559 , 34 L.Ed.2d 506 (1972)(legislature could not have intended the borrowing statute to borrow the limitation law of a jurisdiction where the defendant could not be summoned); Perkins v. Perkins, 541 P.2d 379 (Okl.App.1975)(refusing to bar suit on note based on Oklahoma’s shorter period of limitation).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lehman's Inc. of Anderson v. Hittle (In Re Hittle)
(2×)
See University of Illinois Foundation v. Blonder Tongue Lab., Inc., 465 F.2d 380, 381 (7th Cir.1972) ("[rjeview by the court which considers the plea of collateral es-toppel of the reasoning of the court which made the prior adjudication would be inconsistent with the doctrine of collateral estoppel”), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1061 , 93 S.Ct. 559 , 34 L.Ed.2d 513 ; The policy underlying the doctrine of collateral estoppel is that "one fair opportunity to litigate an issue is enough.” Gilldorn Sav.
cited
Cited "see"
William H. Davis v. Txo Production Corp.
See Western Natural Gas Co. v. Cities Service Gas Co., 507 P.2d 1236, 1241 (Okla.), cert, denied, 409 U.S. 1052 , 93 S.Ct. 559 , 34 L.Ed.2d 506 (1972); 5 H.
discussed
Cited "see"
Crest Tankers, Inc., and Clayton Tankers, Inc. v. National Maritime Union of America
(2×)
See University of Illinois Foundation v. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc., 465 F.2d 380 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1061 , 93 S.Ct. 559 , 34 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Lyons
See People v. McInnis, 6 Cal. 3d 821, 826 (4-3 decision) (suppression of identification not required where photograph, taken after illegal arrest, was fortuitously used to identify defendant as perpetrator of unrelated, previous crime, because there was no evidence that the illegal arrest was exploited), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1061 (1972); Simmons v. United States, 364 A.2d 813, 815 (D.C. 1976) (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cal Growers, Inc. v. Palmer Warehouse & Transfer Co.
See Shaps v. Union Commerce Bank, 476 S.W.2d 466 (Tex.Civ.App. —Beaumont, writ ref’d n.r.e.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1060 , 93 S.Ct. 559 , 34 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972) (court took judicial notice of Ohio laws when the defendant quoted from the statute); Utica Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Bennett, 492 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Civ.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1973, no writ) (holding there is no absolute rule to determine the sufficiency of information required as long as the motion for judicial notice sets forth with some particularity the law to be relied upon).
discussed
Cited "see"
Simmons v. United States
Bond v. United States, D.C.App., 310 A.2d 221, 225 (1973); accord, People v. McInnis, 6 Cal.3d 821 , 100 Cal. *816 Rptr. 618, 494 P.2d 690 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1061, 93 S.Ct. 562 , 34 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972). 3 Appellant also contends that the cross-examination of Shirley Farley as to her purported attempts to influence Whit-ted and Williams was improper, and that it was also error to admit rebuttal testimony contradicting her denial of any such attempts.
cited
Cited "see"
International Tape Manufacturers Association v. Richard Gerstein
See Gaillot v. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, 5th Cir. 1972, 464 F.2d 598, 599 , cert, denied, 409 U.S. 1060 , 93 S.Ct. 559 , 34 L.Ed.2d 512 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Sober v. Crist
See, e.g., Whitney v. Craven, 460 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1061 , 93 S.Ct. 563 , 34 L.Ed.2d 514 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Airtex Corporation, and Cross-Appellee v. Shelley Radiant Ceiling Company, and Cross-Appellant
(2×)
Compare University of Illinois Foundation v. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc., 422 F.2d 769, 778 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1061 , 93 S.Ct. 559 , 34 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972); see also Cloud v. Standard Packaging Corporation, 376 F.2d 384, 391 (7th Cir. 1967). 7 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kaiser Industries Corporation, a Nevada Corporation v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation. Kaiser Industries Corporation, a Nevada Corporation v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation
(2×)
See also cases cited in notes 65, 96 90 Id. at 975 91 See, e. g., 257 F.Supp. at 387, 394-95, 405, 425, 430, 433 , 439 92 402 U.S. 331 -32, 91 S.Ct. 1434 and cases cited therein 93 No case has come to our attention holding that estoppel was inappropriate because of a failure of comprehension in the first trial 94 334 F.Supp. 47, 50 (N.D.Ill.1971), aff'd per curiam 465 F.2d 381 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 409 U.S. 1061 , 93 S.Ct. 559 , 34 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972) 95 Sampson v. Ampex Corp., 478 F.2d 339 (2d Cir. 1973) 96 For a discussion of this problem, see Smith, The Collateral Estoppel Effect of a Pri…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
University of Illinois Foundation
v.
Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc.
v.
Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc.
No. 72-626.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 11, 1972.
Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.