green
Positive treatment
5.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Ray Agard v. Leonard Portuondo, Superintendent of Fishkill Correctional Facility
(2×)
See United States v. Gregorio, 497 F.2d 1253, 1259 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024 , 95 S.Ct. 501 , 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kimes v. United States
(2×)
See Heiligh v. United States, 379 A.2d 689 , 693 n. 7 (D.C.1977) (identifying one reason underlying sixth amendment right to be present as preventing "the loss of confidence in courts as instruments of justice which secret trials would engender" (quoting United States v. Gregorio, 497 F.2d 1253, 1258 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024 , 95 S.Ct. 501 , 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974))).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Paul C. \Paulie\" Villano"
See Rakes v. United States, 309 F.2d 686, 687 (4th Cir.1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 939 , 83 S.Ct. 1543 , 10 L.Ed.2d 694 (1963). 32 The history of the presence privilege was traced in United States v. Gregorio, 497 F.2d 1253 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024 , 95 S.Ct. 501 , 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Paul C. Villano
See Rakes v. United States, 309 F.2d 686, 687 (4th Cir.1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 939 , 83 S.Ct. 1543 , 10 L.Ed.2d 694 (1963). 8 The history of the presence privilege was traced in United States v. Gregorio, 497 F.2d 1253 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024 , 95 S.Ct. 501 , 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Priscilla R. Scott, A/K/A \Pat\" and \"Red
See United States v. Bockius, 564 F.2d 1193, 1194, n. 1 (5th Cir.1977). 6 Such was our firm declaration in United States v. Gregorio, 497 F.2d 1253, 1263 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024 , 95 S.Ct. 501 , 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Edward Katsuaki Shigemura, United States of America v. Bonnie Louise Morley
See United States v. Gregorio, 497 F.2d 1253 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024 , 95 S.Ct. 501 , 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gaetano Modica
In fact, the heroin and the suitcase were themselves subject to forfeiture as a controlled substance and its container, and therefore “no property right . . . existfed] in them.” 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(1), (3); see United States v. Ledesma, 499 F.2d 36, 39-40 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024 , 95 S.Ct. 501 , 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974). ’ Finally, even if Robbins were construed or extended to reach the situation presented *1178 here, appellant would not be entitled to reversal.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. David Lee Brown, United States of America v. Terry Francis Gallagher, United States of America v. Clayton Colwell, Jr., United States of America v. James Adams, Iii, United States of America v. Donald E. Pitts, United States of America v. Kenneth L. Hale
See United States v. Gregorio, 497 F.2d 1253, 1258 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024 , 95 S.Ct. 501 , 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Brown
See United States v. Gregorio, 497 F.2d 1253, 1258 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024 , 95 S.Ct. 501 , 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Odell Marshall
In examining Marshall’s claim, we note that “[a] trial court will not be reversed on evidentiary rulings unless the error is shown to be prejudicial.” Smith v. United States, 407 F.2d 356, 359 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 966 , 89 S.Ct. 2113 , 23 L.Ed.2d 753 (1969); see United States v. Ledesma, 499 F.2d 36, 39-40 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom., Quiroz-Santi v. United States, 419 U.S. 1024 , 95 S.Ct. 501 , 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974); United States v. Castro, 476 F.2d 750, 752 (9th Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Dimora
See Parks, No. 95 CR 510, 1997 WL 136761 , at *16 (citing United States v. Angiulo, 847 F.2d 956 , 980 n. 32 (1st Cir.1988)) ("The court may decline to hold a hearing where defendants do not raise sufficient facts to substantiate a claim of minimization.”); see also United States v. Licavoli, 604 F.2d 613, 621 (9th Cir.1979) (quoting United States v. Ledesma, 499 F.2d 36, 39 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024 , 95 S.Ct. 501 , 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974)) ("An evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress ordinarily is only required if 'the moving papers are sufficiently definite, specific, deta…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Innocent U. Uwaeme
Moreover, “[t]o our knowledge, no court has held that scientific identification of a substance is an absolute prerequisite to conviction for a drug-related offense.” Schrock, 855 F.2d at 334 ; see also United States v. Gregorio, 497 F.2d 1253, 1263 (4th Cir.) (reliable testimony of lay cocaine users sufficient), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024 , 95 S.Ct. 501 , 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bevans
See also United States v. Gregorio, 497 F.2d 1253, 1261-63 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024 , 95 S.Ct. 501 , 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Richard Batiste
See, e.g., United States v. DiCesare, 765 F.2d 890, 896 (9th Cir.), amended, 777 F.2d 543 (9th Cir.1985) (error not to hold evidentiary hearing where defendant “made an offer of proof ‘sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjec-tural to enable the court to conclude that contested issues of fact going to the [subject of the motion] are in question’ ”) (quoting United States v. Ledesma, 499 F.2d 36, 39 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024 , 95 S.Ct. 501 , 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974)); United States v. Carrion, 463 F.2d 704, 706 (9th Cir.1972) (“Evidentiary hearings need be h…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Miller
v.
Virginia
v.
Virginia
No. 74—5111.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 18, 1974.
Published
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.