green
Positive treatment
Circuit Split
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1977 ·
…nor is such use controlled by 47 u.s.c. 605 , as amended.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 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 as authority (quoted)
Joseph Wilkinson v. Maurice Abrams
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
it makes little difference . . . that those who fail the 'seated interview' test are not entitled to benefits . . . hat entitlement is precisely what is at issue . . .
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
James L. Hodge v. The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, a Foreign Corporation
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
nor is such use controlled by 47 u.s.c. 605 , as amended.
discussed
Cited "see"
Avtel Services, Inc. v. Unites States
See Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285-86 , 95 S.Ct. 438 , 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974), reh’g denied, 420 U.S. 956 , 95 S.Ct. 1340 (1975); Consolidated Eng’g Servs., Inc. v. United States, 64 Fed.Cl. 617, 623 (2005); Synetics, Inc. v. United States, 45 Fed.Cl. at 5; CRC Marine Servs., Inc. v. United States, 41 Fed.Cl. 66, 83 (1998); Analytical & Research Tech., Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed.Cl. at 42.
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"
Seva Resorts, Inc. v. Hodel
See Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 286 , 95 S.Ct. 438, 442 , 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974), reh’g denied, 420 U.S. 956 , 95 S.Ct. 1340 , 43 L.Ed.2d 433 (1975); Sears Sav.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Zolp
See United States v. Falcone, 505 F.2d 478, 481 (3d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1338 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975). 12 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Independent Union of Flight Attendants v. United States Department of Transportation
See Bowman Transportation v. Arkansas Best-Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285 , 95 S.Ct. 438, 441 , 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974), reh’g denied, 420 U.S. 956 , 95 S.Ct. 1340 , 43 L.Ed.2d 433 (1975), aff'd 425 U.S. 901 , 96 S.Ct. 1488 , 47 L.Ed.2d 750 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Independent Union Of Flight Attendants v. United States Department Of Transportation
See Bowman Transportation v. Arkansas Best-Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285 , 95 S.Ct. 438, 441 , 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974), reh'g denied, 420 U.S. 956 , 95 S.Ct. 1340 , 43 L.Ed.2d 433 (1975), aff'd 425 U.S. 901 , 96 S.Ct. 1488 , 47 L.Ed.2d 750 (1976). 21 The labor parties insist that the department's change of policy is not only arbitrary and capricious, but that it flies in the face of the expressed will of Congress.
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. Olea
See United States v. Falcone, 505 F.2d 478, 484 (3rd Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1338 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1974) (holding that where the trial court finds the integrity of the tapes to be undisturbed, a delay in sealing is not, in and of itself, sufficient reason to suppress the evidence obtained); United States v. Lawson, 545 F.2d 557, 564 (7th Cir.1975) (upholding trial court’s refusal to suppress tapes which were not sealed until 57 days after the order expired because the defendants did not question the integrity of the tapes).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Olea
See United States v. Falcone, 505 F.2d 478, 484 (3rd Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1338 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1974) (holding that where the trial court finds the integrity of the tapes to be undisturbed, a delay in sealing is not, in and of itself, sufficient reason to suppress the evidence obtained); United States v. Lawson, 545 F.2d 557, 564 (7th Cir.1975) (upholding trial court's refusal to suppress tapes which were not sealed until 57 days after the order expired because the defendants did not question the integrity of the tapes).
discussed
Cited "see"
Camacho v. Bowling
Ross v. Horn, 598 F.2d 1312, 1317-18 (3d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 448 U.S. 906 , 100 S.Ct. 3048 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1136 (1980); see Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U.S. 379, 388 , 95 S.Ct. 533 , 42 L.Ed.2d 521 , reh. denied 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1340 , 43 L.Ed.2d 433 (1975). 7 .
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"
United States v. Edward Kail, United States of America v. Seymour Bergen, United States of America v. Russell Callahan, United States of America v. Clarence Elden Freeman
See United States v. Falcone, 505 F.2d 478, 482 (3rd Cir. 1974) Cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1338 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975). 18 This does not mean that no authorization for the use of pen registers is required.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Kail
See United States v. Falcone, 505 F.2d 478, 482 (3rd Cir. 1974) cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1338 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975).
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).
cited
Cited "see"
Lawrence Alfano v. United States
See United States v. Falcone, 505 F.2d 478 (3 Cir. 1974) cert, denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1338 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Scibelli
See United States v. Falcone, 505 F.2d 478, 481 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1338 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Francesco Scibelli, United States of America v. Andrew Torino, United States of America v. Daniel Sacco, United States of America v. Adolfo Bruno, United States of America v. Lawrence Stone, United States of America v. Joseph Albano, United States of America v. Anthony Maloni, United States of America v. Rocco Albano
See United States v. Falcone, 505 F.2d 478, 481 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 , 95 S.Ct. 1338 , 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975). 12 And in determining the sufficiency of the application a reviewing court must test it in a practical and commonsense manner.
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."
Petri v. United States
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43-44 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 , 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (other citations omitted); see also Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285-86 , 95 S.Ct. 438 , 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974) (“The agency must articulate a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’ While wmay not supply a reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given, we will uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.”) (citations omitted), reh’g denied, 420 U.S. 956 , 95 S.Ct. 13…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Conscoop-Consorzia Fra Cooperative Di Prod. E Lavoro v. United States
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 , 91 S.Ct. 814 , 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971) (citations omitted); see also Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285 , 95 S.Ct. 438 , 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974), reh’g denied, 420 U.S. 956 , 95 S.Ct. 1340 , 43 L.Ed.2d 433 (1975); In re Sang-Su Lee, 277 F.3d at 1342; Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054, 1058 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g denied (2000) (“The arbitrary and capricious standard applicable here is highly deferential.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
CSE Construction Co. v. United States
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 , 91 S.Ct. 814 , 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971) (citations omitted); see also Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285 , 95 S.Ct. 438 , 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974), reh’g denied, 420 U.S. 956 , 95 S.Ct. 1340 , 1341, 43 L.Ed.2d 433 (1975); In re Sang-Su Lee, 277 F.3d at 1342 ; Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054, 1058 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g denied (2000) (“The arbitrary and capricious standard applicable here is highly deferential.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vantage Associates, Inc. v. United States
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 , 91 S.Ct. 814 , 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971) (citations omitted); see also Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285 , 95 S.Ct. 438 , 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974), reh’g denied, 420 U.S. 956 , 95 S.Ct. 1340 , 43 L.Ed.2d 433 (1975); In re Sang-Su Lee, 277 F.3d at 1342 ; Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054, 1058 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g denied (2000) (“The arbitrary and capricious standard applicable here is highly deferential.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Halter Marine, Inc. v. United States
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 , 91 S.Ct. 814 , 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971) (citations omitted); see also Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285 , 95 S.Ct. 438 , 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974), reh’g denied, 420 U.S. 956 , 95 S.Ct. 1340 , 43 L.Ed.2d 433 (1975); In re Sang-Su Lee, 277 F.3d at 1342; Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054, 1058 (Fed.Cir. 2000) (“The arbitrary and capricious standard applicable here is highly deferential.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Maintenance Engineers v. United States
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 , 91 S.Ct. 814 , 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971) (citations omitted); see also Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285 , 95 S.Ct. 438 , 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974), reh’g denied, 420 U.S. 956 , 95 S.Ct. 1340 , 43 L.Ed.2d 433 (1975); Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054, 1058 (Fed.Cir.2000) (“The arbitrary and capricious standard applicable here is highly deferential.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Memorial Hospital/Adair County Health Center, Inc. v. Heckler
See also Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285 , 95 S.Ct. 438, 441 , 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974), reh’g denied, 420 U.S. 956 , 95 S.Ct. 1340 , 43 L.Ed.2d 433 (1975); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 , 91 S.Ct. 814, 823 , 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971).
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…
Mastrian
v.
Cudd, U. S. Magistrate, District of Minnesota
v.
Cudd, U. S. Magistrate, District of Minnesota
No. 74-5788.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 24, 1975.
Cited by 132 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2) · Third Circuit (1)
Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and/or habeas corpus denied.