green
Positive treatment
2.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Zagarino v. West
Thus, violations of such technical provisions of the wiretap law as the requirement that the government, in seeking a wiretap order, identify the law enforcement officer who made and authorized the application for permission to wiretap, 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (1)(a); see United States v. Bohn, 508 F.2d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 947 , 95 S.Ct. 1676 , 44 L.Ed.2d 100 (1975), would not ordinarily be “an error of the character or magnitude cognizable under a writ of habeas corpus.” Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 , 82 S.Ct. 468, 471 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mitchell v. Superior Court
(2×)
(Cf., Muniz v. Hoffman, supra, 422 U.S. 454 ; Girard v. Goins (8th Cir.1978) 575 F.2d 160 [applying a flexible, ad hoc standard to determine the level of fine that makes an offense "serious," and deciding on a case-by-case basis whether a particular fine would be serious to a particular defendant]; and United States v. Professional Air Traffic Controllers (1st Cir.1982) 678 F.2d 1 [applying the same test]; compare United States v. McAlister (10th Cir.1980) 630 F.2d 772 , 774 and United States v. Hamdan (9th Cir.1977) 552 F.2d 276, 280 [statutes authorizing $1,000 fine requires jury trial, "ad …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stephen Thomas Haar v. Michael Hanrahan
Compare Maita v. Whitmore, 508 F.2d 143, 146 (9th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 947 , 95 S.Ct. 1676 , 44 L.Ed.2d 100 (1975) (rejecting Potvin ), with United States v. FMC Corp., 428 F.Supp. 615, 620 (W.D.N.Y.1977), aff’d on other grounds, 572 F.2d 902 (2d Cir.1978) (following Potvin).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hughes v. Cristofane
See also Maita v. Whitmore, 365 F.Supp. 1331 (N.D.Cal.1973), rev’d on other grounds, 508 F.2d 143 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 947 , 95 S.Ct. 1676 , 44 L.Ed.2d 100 (1975) (conduct not protected because obscene).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Poore v. State
See e.g., United States v. Bohn, 508 F. 2d 1145, 1148 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 421 U. S. 947 , 95 S. Ct. 1676 , 44 L.Ed.2d 100 (1975); United States v. Rizzo, 492 F. 2d 443, 447 (2d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 417 U. S. 944 , 94 S. Ct. 3069 , 41 L.Ed.2d 665 (1974); United States v. Iannelli, 477 F. 2d 999, 1003 (3d Cir. 1973), aff'd on other grounds, 420 U. S. 770 , 95 S. Ct. 1284 , 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975); United States v. Wolk, 466 F. 2d 1143 (8th Cir. 1972).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hueston
v.
New York
v.
New York
No. 74-934.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.
Apr 28, 1975.
Published
Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.