green
Positive treatment
4.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Molina-Chacon
See United States v. Wolfish, 525 F.2d 457, 463 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1059 , 96 S.Ct. 794 , 46 L.Ed.2d 649 (1976); Brulay v. United States, 383 F.2d 345, 348 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 986 , 88 S.Ct. 469 , 19 L.Ed.2d 478 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Nathaniel Brooks
See United States v. Stull, 521 F.2d 687, 690 (6th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1059 , 96 S.Ct. 794 , 46 L.Ed.2d 649 (1976); United States v. Joyce, 499 F.2d 9, 18 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1031 , 95 S.Ct. 512 , 42 L.Ed.2d 306 (1974); United States v. Ellicott, 336 F.2d 868 , 870-71 (4th Cir.1964); United States v. Browne, 225 F.2d 751, 756 (7th Cir.1955); United States v. Baker, 50 F.2d 122, 123-24 (2d Cir. 1931).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Blohm
See United States v. Wolfish, 525 F.2d 457, 463 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1059 , 96 S.Ct. 794 , 46 L.Ed.2d 649 (1976); United States v. Halbert, 640 F.2d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir.1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Whalen v. State
See State v. Chambers, Mo.Supr., 524 S.W.2d 826 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1058 , 96 S.Ct. 794 , 46 L.Ed.2d 649 (1976), overruled on federal constitutional grounds, State v. Morgan, supra, 592 S.W.2d at 801. 14 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lace
See United States v. Pond, 523 F.2d 210, 214 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1058, 96 S.Ct. 794 , 46 L.Ed.2d 649 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Daniel J. Ledesma
The court concluded that “Regardless of the possibility of delivery by hand, the fact is that instruments essential to the consummation of the fraud, the false claims and misrepresentations relied upon by the insurance companies, were mailed, and the defendant could reasonably have foreseen that the mails would be used.” Id.; accord, United States v. Stull, 521 F.2d 687 (6 Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1059 , 96 S.Ct. 794 , 46 L.Ed.2d 649 (1976) (the court ruled that it was immaterial that mailed checks could have been hand delivered or otherwise forwarded).
discussed
Cited "see"
MacIo Ennis v. E. Lefevre, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent
(2×)
“Obviously, however, those rights cannot be both exercised at the same time.” United States v. Mitchell, 137 F.2d 1006, 1010 , aff’d on rehearing, 138 F.2d 831 (2d Cir. 1943), cert. denied, 321 U.S. 794 , 64 S.Ct. 785 , 88 L.Ed. 1083 (1944); see United States v. Wolfish, 525 F.2d 457 , 462-63 & n. 2 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1059 , 96 S.Ct. 794 , 46 L.Ed.2d 649 (1976). 4 A defendant who elects to be represented by counsel surrenders the right to make the ultimate decision on a wide variety of matters.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mark Bruce Astroff and Robert Duane Steverson
(2×)
See United States v. Pond, 523 F.2d 210, 213 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1058 , 96 S.Ct. 794 , 46 L.Ed.2d 649 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rivera
The court declines to consider the Mr. Rivera’s pro se brief, because Mr. Rivera . has presented no "compelling reason” for the court to permit this so-called "hybrid representation.” United States v. Tutino, 883 F.2d 1125, 1141 (2d Cir. 1989); see also United States v. Wolfish, 525 F.2d 457, 462 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1059 , 96 S.Ct. 794 , 46 L.Ed.2d 649 (1976) (finding that defendant "had an experienced counsel and, so long as he retained him, he could not appear pro se"); United States v. Muyet, 985 F.Supp. 440, 441 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (denying defendant's motion to submit …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Robert Deleon
(2×)
See also United States v. Pond, 523 F.2d 210, 212 (2d Cir.1975) (holding that "smell alone may justify issuance of a warrant if the affiant is qualified to know the odor and the odor is distinctive.") (emphasis added), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1058 , 96 S.Ct. 794 , 46 L.Ed.2d 649 (1976). 23 We hold that a warrant cannot be based on the claim of an untrained or inexperienced person to have smelled growing plants which have no commonly recognized odor.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Wolf Jacobowitz, A/K/A \Jack Rice
See United States v. Doe, 405 F.2d at 438-39 (refusal to provide handwriting exemplars is admissible); see also United States v. Wolfish, 525 F.2d 457, 461 (2d Cir.1975) (effort to disguise handwriting is admissible), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1059 , 96 S.Ct. 794 , 46 L.Ed.2d 649 (1976).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Thomas Tripp
See also United States v. Stull, 521 F.2d 687, 691 (6th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1059 , 96 S.Ct. 794 , 46 L.Ed.2d 649 (1976).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Taborda
See, e. g., United States v. Pond, 523 F.2d 210, 213 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1058 , 96 S.Ct. 794 , 46 L.Ed.2d 649 (1976).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Chambers
v.
Missouri
v.
Missouri
No. 75-5523.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 12, 1976.
Published
Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.