green
Positive treatment
5.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Kelly Michaels v. State Of New Jersey
See Michaels v. State of New Jersey, 968 F.Supp. 230, 238 (D.N.J.1997). 2 On appeal, the County of Essex contends that under Coleman v. Kaye, 87 F.3d 1491 (3d Cir.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 754 , 136 L.Ed.2d 691 (1997), Cashen v. Spann, 66 N.J. 541 , 334 A.2d 8 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975), and other state cases, the Prosecutor's Office defendants functioned as agents of the State when they engaged in the actions that provide the basis for plaintiff Michaels's suit and that the State is therefore vicariously liable under N.J.S.A. §…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jean Marie St. Gelais
See United States v. Ashdown, 509 F.2d 793, 798 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 47 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
Delbridge v. Schaeffer
See Cashen v. Spann, 66 N.J. 541, 552 , 334 A. 2d 8 , cert. den. 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed. 2d 46 (1975), on remand 143 N.J.
discussed
Cited "see"
Burke v. Deiner
See Cashen v. Spann, 66 N.J. 541 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975) (prosecutor’s conduct not absolutely privileged); Earl *472 v. Winne, 14 N.J. 119 (1953); DeGroot v. Muccio, 115 N.J.
cited
Cited "see"
James McElearney v. University of Illinois at Chicago Circle Campus, J. E. Corbally, President, Andd. H. Riddle, Chancellor
See Cusumano v. Ratchford, 507 F.2d 980, 984-87 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975); cf. Plummer v. Board of Regents, 552 F.2d 716 (6th Cir. 1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. James Finis Toney, Jr., and John H. Stewart, Jr.
See U. S. v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75 , 83 S.Ct. 173 , 9 L.Ed.2d 136 (1962). “[P]ostpurchase mailings which are designed to lull the victim into a false sense of security, postpone inquiries or complaints, or make the transaction less suspect are mailings in furtherance of the scheme.” U. S. v. Ashdown, 509 F.2d 793, 800 (CA5), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 47 (1975). 6 The courts in both Maze and LaFerriere took pains to point out that lulling was not involved in those cases and that the mailings in question could not have had a lulling effect.
discussed
Cited "see"
Peter W. Colm and John M. McIntyre v. Cyrus R. Vance, Secretary of State, U. S. Department of State
(2×)
See Cusumano v. Ratchford, 507 F.2d 980 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975); McNeill v. Butz, 480 F.2d 314, 320-21 (4th Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. McDuffie
In State v. Milligan , 71 N.J. 373 , 365 A .2d 914 (1976), the Supreme Court noted at "common law" there exists a "governmental privilege to withhold the identity of informants who assist law enforcement officials." Id. at 380 , 365 A .2d 914 ; see also Cashen v. Spann , 66 N.J. 541 , 552, 334 A .2d 8 , cert. den. 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed. 2d 46 (1975) (recognizing the government's privilege to protect confidential informants).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DAMMEN D. MCDUFFIE STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HAKEEM A. CHANCE (12-12-1785, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED)
In State v. Milligan, 71 N.J. 373 (1976), the Supreme Court noted at "common law" there exists a "governmental privilege to withhold the identity of informants who assist law enforcement officials." 11 A-1344-14T2 Id. at 380 ; see also Cashen v. Spann, 66 N.J. 541, 552 , cert. den. 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S. Ct. 48 , 46 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert Lavezzi v. State of N.J. (072856)
Co., 69 N.J. 244, 248 , 353 A.2d 508 (1976); see also Cashen v. Spann, 66 N.J. 541, 552 , 334 A.2d 8 (finding “it appropriate to regard the defendant officials as State agents where the alleged tortious conduct arose out of the investigation of criminal activity, but ... expressing] no opinion on the question *175 of whether the prosecutor or his detectives can be considered State or county employees for other purposes”), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975); Twp. of Edison v. Hyland, 156 N.J.Super. 137, 141 , 383 A.2d 714 (App.Div.1978) (stating that “[ajlthou…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kakaes v. George Washington University
See also Cusumano v. Ratchford, 507 F.2d 980, 986 (8th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975). (“It cannot serve the public welfare or promote the best interests of the University or its professional staff to have a body of teachers ... the permanent tenures of whom rest upon administrative neglect or oversight ...”) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lisa L. Fitzgerald v. William Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service
See, e.g., Sir Speedy, Inc. v. L & P Graphics, Inc., 957 F.2d 1033, 1038 (2d Cir.1992); Black Law Enforcement Officers Association v. City of Akron, 824 F.2d 475, 482-83 (6th Cir.1987); see also United States v. Ashdown, 509 F.2d 793, 798 (5th Cir.) ("The statute of limitations is a defense . . ., not a rule of evidence.... [It] has no bearing on the admissibility of evidence ."), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 47 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gallagher
Although designated the informer's privilege, the privilege is not that of the informer, but of government "to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with enforcement of that law." Roviario v. United States, 353 U.S. at 59 , 77 S.Ct. at 627 , 1 L.Ed. 2d at 644 ; see also Cashen v. Spann, 66 N.J. 541, 552 , 334 A. 2d 8 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed. 2d 46 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sir Speedy, Inc. v. L & P Graphics, Inc., Neil H. Blatte and Business Service Centers, Inc.
See, e.g., Black Law Enforcement Officers Association v. City of Akron, 824 F.2d 475, 482-83 (6th Cir.1987); see also United States v. Ashdown, 509 F.2d 793, 798 (5th Cir.) (“The statute of limitations is a defense ..., not a rule of evidence_ [It] has no bearing on the admissibility of evidence.”), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 47 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Williams
See also Cashen v. Spann, 66 N.J. 541 , 334 A. 2d 8 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed. 2d 46 (1975); State v. Oliver, 50 N.J. 39 , 231 A. 2d 805 (1967). *628 The trial judge in this case also considered United States v. Green, 670 F. 2d 1148 (D.C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Peter Angelilli, William Butler, Donald Irish, and Donald Ribotsky
(2×)
See also United States v. Ashdown, 509 F.2d 793, 800 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 47 (1975) (mailing of stock certificates and confirmations of stock purchases are sufficiently connected to scheme to constitute mail fraud: “post-purchase mailings which are designed to lull the victim into a false sense of security, postpone inquiries or complaints, or make the transaction less suspect are mailings in furtherance of the scheme.”); United States v. MacClain, 501 F.2d 1006, 1011-12 (10th Cir. 1974).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Delta County Levee Improvement District No. 2
v.
Leonard
v.
Leonard
No. 74-1416.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1975.
Published
Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.