green
Positive treatment
3.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Jack Southard, United States of America v. Monsour Ferris, A/K/A Monte, United States of America v. Lester Banker, A/K/A Lem, United States of America v. John Brian, A/K/A John Baborian, United States of America v. Anna Quinterno, United States of America v. Vincent Quinterno, United States of America v. Harry Kachougian, A/K/A Tom and Tommy, United States of America v. Robert Martin, United States of America v. Bernard Falk, United States of America v. Anthony Lauro, A/K/A Poochie
But cf. Heald v. Mullaney, 505 F.2d 1241, 1246 (1st Cir.1974) (in a habeas corpus case the requirement of special findings if jury found defendant not guilty was held not to be an error of constitutional dimensions), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1339 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975). 50 If the defendant had objected to the use of the verdict form, we might be inclined to view its use as plain error. 16 But there was no objection when the court informed the jury that this type of form would be submitted to it.
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Southard
But cf. Heald v. Mullaney, 505 F.2d 1241, 1246 (1st Cir.1974) (in a habeas corpus case the requirement of special findings if jury found defendant not guilty was held not to be an error of constitutional dimensions), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1339 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gerena
See United States v. Falcone, 505 F.2d 478, 484 (3d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1339 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975); United States v. Diadone, 558 F.2d 775, 780 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1064 , 98 S.Ct. 1239 , 55 L.Ed.2d 765 *675 (1978); Angelini, 565 F.2d 469 ; Lawson 545 F.2d at 564 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Benjamin Ruggiero, Nicholas Santora, Anthony Rabito, and Antonio Tomasulo
(2×)
See Heald v. Mullaney, 505 F.2d 1241 (1st Cir.1974), cert, denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1339 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Waggoner
See State v. Nemrod, 85 N.M. 118 , 509 P.2d 885 (Ct.App.1973), overruled on other grounds in State v. Vigil, 86 N.M. 388 , 524 P.2d 1004 (Ct.App.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1339 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975); State v. Austin, 91 N.M. 793 , 581 P.2d 1288 (Ct.App.1978); State v. Clark, 89 N.M. 695 , 556 P.2d 851 (Ct.App.1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Beavers
See Morris v. United States, 9 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 525 ." See also Heald v. Mullaney, 505 F.2d 1241 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1339 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1974); United States v. James, 432 F.2d 303, 307-308 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 403 U.S. 906 , 91 S.Ct. 2214 , 29 L.Ed.2d 682 (1970); Gray v. United States, 174 F.2d 919 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 338 U.S. 848 , 70 S.Ct. 90 , 94 L.Ed. 519 (1949); United States v. McCracken, 488 F.2d 406, 418-19 (5th Cir. 1974).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Luna
State v. Barela, 88 N.M. 446 , 541 P.2d 435 (Ct.App. 1975); see State v. Vigil, 86 N.M. 388 , 524 P.2d 1004 (Ct.App.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1339 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Armijo
See State v. Vigil, 86 N.M. 388 , 524 P.2d 1004 (Ct.App.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1339 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael O'LOOney
(2×)
See Heald v. Mullaney, 505 F.2d 1241, 1245 (1st Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1339 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
Application of United States
See, for example, United States v. Falcone (3 Cir. 1974), 505 F.2d 478, 482 , cert. den. 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1339 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975), which goes so far as to hold that “an order permitting interception under Title III for a *403 wiretap provides sufficient authorization for the use of a pen register, and no separate order for the latter is necessary.” To say that, of course, is not to say that a court has power and jurisdiction to authorize the installation of a pen register independent of the authority to authorize electronic surveillance as provided in Title III.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States ex rel. Machi v. United States Department of Probation & Parole
See, e. g., United States v. Falcone, 505 F.2d 478, 481 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1339 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975) (the attorney general was “fully aware of the facts of the specific case”); United States v. Whitaker, 343 F.Supp. 358, 360 (E.D.Pa.1972), rev’d on other grounds, 474 F.2d 1246 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 950 , 953, 93 S.Ct. 3003 , 37 L.Ed.2d 1006 (1973) (“There certainly was enough information before the Attorney General for him personally to authorize the application.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Heald
v.
Mullaney, Warden
v.
Mullaney, Warden
No. 74-5813.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 24, 1975.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
C. A. 1st Cir. Motion to amend petition granted. Cer-tiorari denied.