green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.2 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Morales v. ATTORNEYS'TITLE INS. FUND, INC.
if none of the named plaintiffs may maintain this action on their own behalf, they may not seek such relief on behalf of a class.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gary v. D. Agustini & Asociados, S.A.
if none of the named plaintiffs may maintain this action on their own behalf, they may not seek such relief on behalf of a class.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gross v. Summa Four, Inc.
Id. at 1420 n. 6; see Britt v. McKenney, 529 F.2d 44, 45 (1st Cir.) (“If none of the named plaintiffs may maintain action on their own behalf, they may not seek such relief on behalf of a class.”), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 149 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976); see also Lewis v. Casey, — U.S. -,-, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2181-83 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). 2.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gross v. Summa Four, Inc.
Id. at 1420 n.6; see Britt ___ ___ _____ v. McKenny, 529 F.2d 44, 45 (1st Cir.) ("If none of the named _______ plaintiffs may maintain action on their own behalf, they may not seek such relief on behalf of a class."), cert. denied, _____ ______ 429 U.S. 854 (1976); see also Lewis v. Casey, 64 U.S.L.W. ___ ____ _____ _____ 4587, 4590 (U.S. June 25, 1996). 2.
discussed
Cited "see"
Lahr v. State
See United States v. Simmons (1976), 9th Cir., 536 F.2d 827, 830 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (six-month delay); O'Neill v. State (1992), Ind.App., 597 N.E.2d 379, 381 , trans. denied (six-month delay); but see Davis v. State (1976), 32 Md.App., 318, 323 , 360 A.2d 467, 471 (delay of "slightly less than seven months” not sufficiently inordinate to trigger analysis). 4 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Walter Donald Beamon, Jr., United States of America v. Jeffrey John McMillin
See United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827, 831 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 *1015 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Siegfriedt v. Fair
Accord United States v. Rangel, 534 F.2d 147, 148 (9th Cir.), ______ _____________ ______ cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 (1976) (Smith "does not establish a _____ ______ _____ rigid rule of disclosure [of a witness's name], but rather discusses disclosure against a background of factors") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kent A. Siegfriedt v. Michael Fair
Accord United States v. Rangel, 534 F.2d 147, 148 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 147 , 50 L.Ed.2d 129 (1976) (Smith “does not establish a rigid rule of disclosure [of a witness’s name], but rather discusses disclosure against a background of factors”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc.
See United States v. Mehrmanesh, 652 F.2d 766, 771 (9th Cir.1980). *1047 Rule 48(b) explicitly authorizes dismissal “if there is unnecessary delay in bringing a defendant to trial.” This rule grants the trial court “inherent power, derived from common law, to dismiss a case for want of prosecution....” United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827, 832 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. J. Wilton Hunt, Sr.
See United States v. Rangel, 534 F.2d 147, 149 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 147 , 50 L.Ed.2d 129 (1976) (rejecting claim that hearsay improperly admitted to prove predisposition where matter opened up by defense counsel). .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert Eugene Mills and Richard Raymond Pierce
(2×)
See United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827, 832 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976). 9 The Sixth Amendment speedy trial provision applies when a defendant is "accused." United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 788-89 , 97 S.Ct. 2044, 2047-48 , 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977); United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 313 , 92 S.Ct. 455, 459 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Hernandez
See United States v. Rangel, 534 F.2d 147, 148 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 147 , 50 L.Ed.2d 129 (1976) (nondisclosure upheld where evidence presented at hearing on matter indicated threats had been made on the informant’s life). .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jack Moody Stricklin, Jr.
Accord, United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827, 833 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976); United States v. Correia, 531 F.2d 1095, 1097 (1st Cir. 1976); United States v. Clay, 481 F.2d 133, 135 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1009 , 97 S.Ct. 371 , 38 L.Ed.2d 247 (1973); United States v. Beidler, 417 F.Supp. 608, 616 (M.D.Fla.1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. McLemore
See U. S. v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1976), cert, denied 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 ; U. S. v. Stoker, 522 F.2d 576 (10th Cir. 1975); U. S. v. Furey, 514 F.2d 1098 (2d Cir. 1975); U. S. v. Clay, 481 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1973), cert, denied 414 U.S. 1009 , 94 S.Ct. 371 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stein v. United States
Additionally, the court does not sit as “a super correction board.” Skinner v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. at 331 , 594 F.2d at 830 ; see also Voge v. United States, 844 F.2d 776, 782 (Fed.Cir.) (The “court does not function as ‘a sort of super Correction Board.’” (quoting Reale v. United States, 208 Ct.Cl. 1010 , 1013, 529 F.2d 533 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 129 (1976))), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 941 , 109 S.Ct. 365 , 102 L.Ed.2d 355 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McClellan v. United States
The court does not sit as “a super correction board.” Skinner v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. at 331 , 594 F.2d at 830 ; see also Voge v. United States, 844 F.2d 776, 782 (Fed.Cir.) (The “court does not function as ‘a sort of super Correction Board.’ ” (quoting Reale v. United States, 208 Ct.Cl. 1010 , 1013, 529 F.2d 533 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 129 (1976))), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 941 , 109 S.Ct. 365 , 102 L.Ed.2d 355 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Smith
The court’s ruling did not violate defendant’s right of confrontation (see People v Granger, 26 AD3d 268 [2006]; see also United States v Rangel, 534 F2d 147, 148 [9th Cir 1976], cert denied 429 US 854 [1976]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Mills
That decision did not violate defendant’s right of confrontation (see People v Waver, 3 NY3d 748 , 750 [2004]; People v Granger, 26 AD3d 268 [2006]; see also United States v Rangel, 534 F2d 147, 148 [9th Cir 1976], cert denied 429 US 854 [1976]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Petersen
See, e.g., United States v. Simmons , 536 F.2d 827, 836 (9th Cir.), cert. denied , 429 U.S. 854 U.S. (1976). [¶12] While the district court’s order of dismissal states the cases were dismissed on the basis the City was not ready to proceed, the order contains no mention of a violation of a specific rule or statute.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
City of Jamestown v. Snellman
See, e.g., United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827, 836 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976). [¶ 12] While the district court’s order of dismissal states the cases were dismissed on the basis the City was not ready to proceed, the order contains no mention of a violation of a specific rule or statute.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Zavislak v. United States
See, e.g., Reale v. United States, 208 Ct.Cl. 1010 , 1011, 529 F.2d 533, 534 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 129 (1976) (holding that the AFBCMR mandate requires it to correct error and injustice).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pelletier v. Warden
“While prejudice in the nature of that asserted here is unfortunately present in every case of pretrial delay, general claims of anxiety are thought insufficient to invoke what has been termed ‘the unsatisfactorily severe remedy of dismissal.’ ...” (Citations omitted.) State v. Flowers, supra, 553 ; State v. Foshay, supra, 16-17 ; compare United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827, 831-32 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S. Ct. 148 , 50 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Sultan El-Gawli
See also United States v. Rangel, 534 F.2d 147, 149 (9th Cir.) (ruling that even if evidence as to predisposition was inadmissible, overwhelming evidence that government had not induced defendant to commit the crime sufficed to disprove entrapment defense), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 147 , 50 L.Ed.2d 129 (1976). *148 El-Gawli’s argument for an “and” charge derives from our decision in United States v. Castro, 776 F.2d 1118 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1029 , 106 S.Ct. 1233 , 89 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Desmond Bryan
See, e.g., United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827, 837 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976); United States v. Rodriguez, 497 F.2d 172 (5th Cir. 1974) (both requiring balancing of factors in cases arising before applicability of Speedy Trial Act).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
James Leroy Cain v. Steve Smith, Steven L. Beshear
See, e.g., United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827, 831 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976). (6 month delay sufficient to trigger further balancing for forging and uttering treasury check); United States v. Johnson, 579 F.2d 122 (1st Cir. 1978) (8 month delay sufficient for bail jumping); United States v. Fay, 505 F.2d 1037, 1039 (1st Cir. 1974) (9 month delay sufficient for conspiracy to distribute cocaine); Tucker v. Wolff, 581 F.2d 235, 237 (9th Cir. 1978) (9 month delay “a long wait for simple burglary case”); United States v. *382 Avalos, 541 F.…
Williams
v.
New York
v.
New York
No. 75-6953.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1976.
Published
Citer courts: S.D. Florida (2)
App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.