green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
6.6 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 1 distinct case ·
“reciprocal and integrated utterance between the two.”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“To look at a part alone would be to obtain a false notion of the thought.”
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. John E. Kenny, Trenton P. Oelberg, and William L. Parker, Defendants
reciprocal and integrated utterance between the two.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Hilleshiem
to look at a part alone would be to obtain a false notion of the thought.
cited
Cited "see"
McMaster v. Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals
See Belle Terre 416 U.S. at 8 , 94 S.Ct. 1586 (“[E]very line drawn by a legislature leaves some out that might well have been included.
cited
Cited "see"
Wickliffe v. Farley
See United States v. Lemonakis, 485 F.2d 941, 949 (D.C.Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 [ 94 S.Ct. 1586 , 1587, 39 L.Ed.2d 885 ] (1974).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Kelly Rollins and Dan Slaughter
See United States v. Lemonakis, 485 F.2d 941, 949 (D.C.Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1586 , 39 L.Ed.2d 885 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Formal Inquiry Concerning Judge Bennett
See In Re Diener and Broccolino, 268 Md. 659 , 304 A.2d 587 (1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1586 , 39 L.Ed.2d 885 (1974), for the earlier such instance and the background for our current constitutional provision.
discussed
Cited "see"
Daniel Ellsberg, v John N. Mitchell
(2×)
Affidavit of Attorney General of the United States p 2 , May 8, 1973 (JA 29); see United States v. Lemonakis, 485 F.2d 941, 963 (D.C.Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1586 , 39 L.Ed.2d 885 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Timothy McKinney
See Poole v. Perini, 659 F.2d 730 (6th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 910 , 102 S.Ct. 1259 , 71 L.Ed.2d 450 (1982) (see particularly the cases cited at 659 F.2d 733 and the accompanying discussion). 36 As the court in Perini states, "An adoptive [statement] avoids the confrontation problem because the words of the hearsay become the words of the defendant." Other relevant case authority includes United States v. Lemonakis, 485 F.2d 941 (D.C.Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1586 , 39 L.Ed.2d 885 (1974) (court affirmed a trial judge's admission into evidence of certain incrimi…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. James F. Bolden, United States of America v. George E. Jones
See United States v. Lemonakis, 158 U.S.App.D.C. 162 , 485 F.2d 941 , 952 n. 18 (1973) cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1586 , 39 L.Ed.2d 885 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Robert A. Beckham
See Berrisford v. Wood, 826 F.2d 747, 751 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1016 , 108 S.Ct. 722 , 98 L.Ed.2d 671 (1988); United States v. Monks, 774 F.2d 945, 952 (9th Cir.1985); see also United States v. Lemonakis, 48 5 F.2d 941, 949 (D.C.Cir.1973) (recognizing that adoptive admissions constitute “a long-recognized hearsay exception”), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1586 , 39 L.Ed.2d 885 (1974); 4 Wigmore on Evidence, §§ 1069-1075 (Chadbourn rev. 1972) (citing English, Canadian, and state court cases going back to the early years of the Republic).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Keith Harrison, United States of America v. Eric M. Black, United States of America v. Felando F. Butler
See, e.g., United States v. Lemonakis, 485 F.2d 941, 952 (D.C.Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1586 , 1587, 39 L.Ed.2d 885 (1974); see also DeLuna v. United States, 308 F.2d 140 (5th Cir.1962).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tony Hanif Lee v. Gary McCaughtry
See also United States v. Gutierrez-Chavez, 842 F.2d 77, 81 (5th Cir.1988) (statements on tape recording admissible "for the limited purpose of putting the responses of the appellant in context and making them ‘intelligible to the jury and recognizable as admissions' ”) (quoting United States v. Lemonakis, 485 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C.Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1586 , 39 L.Ed.2d 885 (1974)); United States v. Jordan, 810 F.2d 262, 264 (D.C.Cir.) (statements on tape recording not hearsay, because they were introduced to show context of appellant’s responses), cert. denied, …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris v. State
See, e.g., United States v. Lemonakis, 485 F.2d 941, 948-49 (D.C.Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1586 , 39 L.Ed.2d 885 (1974); People v. Norman, 252 Cal.App.2d 381, 409-10 , 60 Cal.Rptr. 609 (1967), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 923 , 88 S.Ct. 1819 , 20 L.Ed.2d 661 (1968); State v. McClain, 254 La. 56 , 222 So.2d 855, 856-57 (1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 911 , 90 S.Ct. 2205 , 26 L.Ed.2d 566 (1970); State v. Spica, 389 S.W.2d 35, 46-47 (Mo.1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 972 , 86 S.Ct. 1277 , 16 L.Ed.2d 312 (1966); Commonwealth v. Cavell, 425 Pa. 365 , 228 A.2d 647, 652 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cuthbertson
United States v. Murray, 618 F.2d 892, 900-01 (2nd Cir. 1980); United States v. Lubrano, 529 F.2d 633 (2nd Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 818 , 97 S.Ct. 61 , 50 L.Ed.2d 78 (1976); see also United States v. Lemonakis, 485 F.2d 941, 947-50 (D.C.Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1586 , 39 L.Ed.2d 885 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Robert Craig, Frank P. North, Jr., Peter v. Pappas and Jack E. Walker
(2×)
Compare United States v. Lemonakis, 158 U.S.App.D.C. 162, 175 , 485 F.2d 941, 954 (1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1586 , 39 L.Ed.2d 885 (1973) 15 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (2)(c) provides as follows: "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, where such a person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception." 16 The agreement recited that Pete Pappas would provide information concerning various legislators and their relationship wit…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Investigation of FMC Corp.
See also, United States v. Lemonakis, 158 U.S.App.D.C. 162 , 485 F.2d 941, 955-56 (D.C.Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1586 , 39 L.Ed.2d 885 (1974); United States v. Springer, 460 F.2d 1344, 1354 (7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 873 , 93 S.Ct. 205 , 34 L.Ed.2d 125 (1972); Coughlan v. United States, 391 F.2d 371, 376-77 (9th Cir. 1968) (Hamley, C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lawrence Daniel Caldwell, A/K/A Thomas E. Morgan, (Two Cases). United States of America v. Eros A. Timm, (Two Cases)
(2×)
See also United States v. Lemonakis, 158 U.S.App.D.C. 162, 172 , 485 F.2d 941, 951 (1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1586 , 39 L.Ed.2d 885 (1974); United States v. Gambrill, supra note 129 , 146 U.S.App.D.C. at 87 , 449 F.2d at 1163 ; United States v. Robinson, supra note 117, 139 U.S.App.D.C. at 289 , 432 F.2d at 1351. .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gulf Oil Corp.
v.
Copp Paving Co., Inc.
v.
Copp Paving Co., Inc.
No. 73-1012.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 25, 1974.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1) · Supreme Court of Iowa (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1(a), (b), and (c) presented in the petition, which read as follows:
“1. With respect to a commodity which is not only made and sold in one state alone but is only salable and usable in that state, does the fact that it is used in an instrumentality of commerce such as a highway supply the necessary requirements, by itself and as a matter of law
“ (a) Of the anti-discrimination clause of the Robinson-Patman Act that the discriminatory sale be by a 'person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce/ that 'either or any of the purchases involved . . . [be] in commerce/ and that the 'effect . . . may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce’?
“(b) Of Section 3 of the Clayton Act that the tying conduct be that of a 'person engaged in commerce, in the[*989] course of such commerce’ and that ‘the effect . . . may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce’ ?
“(c) Of Section 7 of the Clayton Act that the acquisition by a ‘corporation engaged in commerce’ be of a corporation ‘engaged also in commerce,’ and that ‘the effect . . . may be substantially to lessen competition, or tend to create a monopoly,’ where the acquired corporation sold nothing in commerce and the product it made did not enter commerce?”