green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
6.2 score
“the precedential value of this court's decision . . . was substantially diminished by the action of the supreme court in taking the case for review on the merits, which did not come about only by reason of the intervention of mootness”
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1001 v. National Labor Relations Board
the precedential value of this court's decision . . . was substantially diminished by the action of the supreme court in taking the case for review on the merits, which did not come about only by reason of the intervention of mootness
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Retail Store Employees Union v. National Labor Relations Board
the precedential value of this court's decision . was substantially diminished by the action of the supreme court in taking the case for review on the merits, which did not come about only by reason of the intervention of mootness
discussed
Cited "see"
42 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1089, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6281, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,701 United States of America v. Guy W. Olano, Jr., United States of America v. Raymond M. Gray
See United States v. Tidwell, 559 F.2d 262, 266-67 (5th Cir.1977) (in action charging bank officers with unauthorized issuance of letter of credit and misapplication of funds, final judgment in mortgage foreclosure proceeding properly excluded under Rule 403 because relevance outweighed by potential to confuse issues and to mislead jury), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 942 , 98 S.Ct. 1520 , 55 L.Ed.2d 538 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Olano
See United States v. Tidwell, 559 F.2d 262, 266-67 (5th Cir.1977) (in action charging bank officers with unauthorized issuance of letter of credit and mis application of funds, final judgment in mortgage foreclosure proceeding properly excluded under Rule 403 because relevance outweighed by potential to confuse issues and to mislead jury), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 942 , 98 S.Ct. 1520 , 55 L.Ed.2d 538 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Oriental Republic of Uruguay
See Burgess v. M/V Tamano, 564 F.2d 964, 981-82 (1st Cir.1977), cert. den’d, 435 U.S. 941 , 98 S.Ct. 1520 , 55 L.Ed.2d 537 (1978); cf. United States v. LeBeouf Bros.
cited
Cited "see"
Ciba-Geigy Corporation v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
See New York Stock Exchange, Inc. v. Bloom, 562 F.2d 736 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 942 , 98 S.Ct. 1520 , 55 L.Ed.2d 538 (1978) (holding opinion letter unreviewable).
cited
Cited "see"
Olympia Sauna Compania Naviera, S.A. v. United States
See Burgess v. M/V Tamano, 564 F.2d 964, 975 (1st Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 941 , 98 S.Ct. 1520 , 55 L.Ed.2d 537 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co.
See Burgess v. M/V Tamano, 564 F.2d 964, 993 (1st Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 941 , 98 S.Ct. 1520 , 55 L.Ed.2d 537 (1978); and Commw. of Puerto Rico v. SS Zoe Colocotroni, 456 F.Supp. 1327, 1347 (D.P.R.1978), aff'd, 602 F.2d 12 (1st Cir.1979), construing 33 U.S.C. §§ 1321 (f)(1) and (2) of FWPCA, respectively, shall be liable to the United States for "the actual costs incurred", not to require a showing of reasonableness.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Donald Steffen
See United States v. Tidwell, 559 F.2d 262, 266 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 942 , 98 S.Ct. 1520 , 55 L.Ed.2d 538 (1978) (evidence that bank recovered its investment confused issue of intent to defraud); United States v. Johnson, 558 F.2d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1065 , 98 S.Ct. 1241 , 55 L.Ed.2d 766 (1978) (evidence of overpayment due to overlooked deductions confused issue of willfully falsifying tax returns).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
American Land Title Ass'n v. Clarke
Id. at 152-53 , 87 S.Ct. at 1517-18 ; see also New York Stock Exchange v. Bloom, 562 F.2d 736, 741 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied 435 U.S. 942 , 98 S.Ct. 1520 , 55 L.Ed.2d 538 (1978) (referring to this choice as a “Hobson’s Choice”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Debbe Marquardt
Compare 18 U.S.C. § 657 and United States v. Tidwell, 559 F.2d 262, 265 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 942 , 98 S.Ct. 1520 , 55 L.Ed.2d 538 (1978) (discussing elements of misapplication of bank funds pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 656 , a parallel provision of § 657 applying to national banks, members of the Federal Reserve banks, or banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation rather than savings and loan associations) with 18 U.S.C. § 1006 and United States v. Frederick, 551 F.Supp. 1035, 1042 (D.Kan.1982) (discussing elements of false entry pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1005 ,…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Investment Co. Institute v. Conover
See also, NYSE v. Smith, 404 F.Supp. 1091, 1097 (D.D.C. 1975), vacated on other grounds sub nom., NYSE v. Bloom, 562 F.2d 736 (D.C.Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 942 , 98 S.Ct. 1520 , 55 L.Ed.2d 538 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Securities Industry Association v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and Bankamerica Corporation, Intervenor
See also New York Stock Exchange, Inc. v. Smith, 404 F.Supp. 1091, 1099-1100 (D.D.C.1975) (bank’s plan to purchase securities on account for customers, and automatically to deduct designated purchase amount from customers’ bank accounts, held to be consistent with the Act), vacated on other grounds, 562 F.2d 736 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. *99 denied, 435 U.S. 942 , 98 S.Ct. 1520 , 55 L.Ed.2d 538 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Marunaka Maru No. 88
Cobb Coin Co., Inc. v. Unidentified, Wrecked, and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 549 F.Supp. 540 , 555 n. 14 (S.D.Flor *1371 ida 1982); see also, Burgess v. M/V TAMANO, 564 F.2d 964, 983 (1st Cir.1977) cert. denied, 435 U.S. 941 , 98 S.Ct. 1520 , 55 L.Ed.2d 537 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Golar v. Daniels & Bell, Inc.
See, e.g., American Society of Travel Agents, Inc. v. Bank of America, 385 F.Supp. 1084 (N.D.Cal.1974); see also, New York Stock Exchange v. Bloom, 562 F.2d 736, 742 (D.C.Cir.1977) (dicta), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 942 , 98 S.Ct. 1520 , 55 L.Ed.2d 538 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William Archie Williams
See, e. g., United States v. Tidwell, 559 F.2d 262, 266 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 942 , 98 S.Ct. 1520 , 55 L.Ed.2d 538 (1978); United States v. Riley, 550 F.2d 233, 236 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Sorensen, 330 F.Supp. 642 (D.Mont.1971).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tidwell
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 77-787.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 27, 1978.
Published
Citer courts: D.C. Circuit (2)
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.