green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
5.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1991 ·
…where a jury has been clearly admonished not to read newspaper accounts of the trial in which they are serving as jurors, it is not to be presumed that they violated that admonition.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Yamaner v. Orkin
Meche v. Dan-Tex International, Inc., 681 F.2d 264 (5th Cir.1982); In re Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 666 F.2d 55 (4th Cir.1981); Eastern Maico Distributors, Inc. v. Maico-Fahrzeugfabrik, 658 F.2d 944 (3d Cir.1981); Johnny Pflocks v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 634 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir.1980); Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of California, 619 F.2d 72 (Em.App.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 832 , 101 S.Ct. 102 , 66 L.Ed.2d 38 (1980); but see State of Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 833 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Robinson v. Tanner
Emer.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 832 , 101 S.Ct. 102 , 66 L.Ed.2d 38 (1980); In re Attorney General of United States, 596 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 903 , 100 S.Ct. 217 , 62 L.Ed.2d 141 (1979); but see Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370, 1372 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 833 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978) (order imposing preclusionary and monetary sanctions for noncompliance with discovery orders was final and appealable); 5 Miller v. Reighter, 581 F.2d 1181, 1182 (8th Cir.1978) (ordinarily, a discovery order directed to the production of doc…
discussed
Cited "but see"
Robinson v. Tanner
Aurora Bancshares Corp. v. Weston, 777 F.2d 385, 386 (7th Cir.1985); Meche v. Dan-Tex International, Inc., 681 F.2d 264, 265 (5th Cir.1982); In re Underwriters at Lloyd's, 666 F.2d 55 , 58 (4th Cir.1981); Eastern Maico Distributors v. Maico-Fahrzeugfabrik, 658 F.2d 944 , 947 (3d Cir.1981); Johnny Pflocks, Inc. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 634 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir.1980); Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of California, 619 F.2d 72, 74 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 832 , 101 S.Ct. 102 , 66 L.Ed.2d 38 (1980); In re Attorney General of United States, 596 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir.), cert.…
discussed
Cited "but see"
Appeal of Licht & Semonoff
Co., 742 F.2d 369, 370-71 (7th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 1409 , 84 L.Ed.2d 798 (1985); Eastern Maico Distributors, Inc. v. Maico-Fahrzeugfabrik, 658 F.2d 944, 947 (3d Cir.1981); Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of Calif, 619 F.2d 72, 74 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 832 , 101 S.Ct. 102 , 66 L.Ed.2d 38 (1980); but see State of Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370, 1372 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 833 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978).
cited
Cited "but see"
Reed v. Hess
Ed. 2d 38 (1980); but see State of Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 833 , 99 S. Ct. 114 , 58 L.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Charles M. Coleman v. Sherwood Medical Industries
Meche v. Dan-Tex International, Inc., 681 F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1982); In re Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 666 F.2d 55 (4th Cir.1981); Eastern Maico Distributors, Inc. v. Maico-Fabrzeugfabrik, 658 F.2d 944 (3d Cir.1981); Johnny Pflocks v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 634 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir. 1980); Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of California, 619 F.2d 72 (Em.App.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 832 , 101 S.Ct. 102 , 66 L.Ed.2d 38 (1980); but see State of Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 833 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Harper v. People
(2×)
where a jury has been clearly admonished not to read newspaper accounts of the trial in which they are serving as jurors, it is not to be presumed that they violated that admonition.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Air Crash Disaster at Stapleton International Airport
cooperation among counsel is not only helpful, but required, and the court has the duty to ensure that such cooperation is forthcoming.
cited
Cited "see"
D'AGOSTINO v. Johnson & Johnson
See State of Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F. 2d 1370, 1374 (10th Cir.), cert. den., 439 U.S. 833 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed. 2d 129 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Anthony Leonard Scrima
See United States v. Giacalone, 574 F.2d 328 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 834 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978) (proof of defendant-taxpayer's involvement in illegal cash business justified dash method).
cited
Cited "see"
Holcomb v. Allis-Chalmers
See Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370, 1376 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 833 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Holcomb v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.
See Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370, 1376 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 833 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Remington Products, Inc. v. North American Philips Corp.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370, 1374-75 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 833 [ 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 ] (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Battryn v. Indian Oil Co., Inc.
See Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370, 1374 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 833 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hammond v. Coastal Rental & Equipment Co.
See, for example, State of Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370 (10th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 833 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978); VonBrimer v. Whirlpool Corp., 362 F.Supp. 1182 (N.D.Cal.1973), affirmed in this respect, 536 F.2d 838 (9th Cir. 1976).
cited
Cited "see"
Martin v. Bell Helicopter Co.
See State of Ohio v. Crofters, 75 F.R.D. 12 (D.Colo.1977), aff’d 570 F.2d 1370 (10th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 833 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cooper v. University of Texas at Dallas
See Satterwhite v. City of Greenville, 578 F.2d 987 , 994 n. 8 (5th Cir. 1978), petition for cert. docketed, 439 U.S. 834 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1979); Payne v. Travenol Laboratories, Inc., 565 F.2d 895, 900 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 835 , 99 S.Ct. 118 , 58 L.Ed.2d 131 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Williams v. Texaco, Inc.
See also Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370, 1376 (10th Cir.) (“Enforcement of the rules requires sanctions for disobedience of valid court orders”), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 833 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Richmark Corp., a California Corporation v. Timber Falling Consultants, an Oregon Corporation, Timber Falling Consultants, an Oregon Corporation, Counterclaim v. Richmark Corp., a California Corporation, Peacock Mfg. Co., a Texas Corporation, Zhu Yuanchang, Eugene Wang, James Yang, and Francis Tong, Counterclaim and Beijing Ever Bright Industrial Co., a Foreign Corporation, Counterclaim
See, e.g., Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370, 1375 (10th Cir.) (awarding expenses before and after the time of contempt against party who refused to disclose information based on a foreign secrecy statute), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 833 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978); Remington Products v. North American Philips Corp., 107 F.R.D. 642, 644-45 (D.Conn.1985) (same); Aerwey Laboratories v. Arco Polymers, Inc., 90 F.R.D. 563, 565 (N.D.Ill.1981) (expenses incurred in preparing motion to compel properly awarded under Rule 37).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants
See, e.g., Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370, 1375 (10th Cir.) (awarding expenses before and after the time of contempt against party who refused to disclose information based on a foreign secrecy statute), cert, denied, 439 U.S. 833 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978); Remington Products v. North American Philips Corp., 107 F.R.D. 642, 644-45 (D.Conn.1985) (same); Aerwey Laboratories v. Arco Polymers, Inc., 90 F.R.D. 563, 565 (N.D.Ill.1981) (expenses incurred in preparing motion to compel properly awarded under Rule 37).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Graco, Inc. v. Kremlin, Inc.
Compare State of Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 833 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978), with In re Westinghouse Electric Corp. Uranium Contracts Litigation, 563 F.2d 992 (10th Cir.1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Waldschmidt v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co. (In re Fulghum Construction Corp.)
See, e.g., Ohio v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 570 F.2d 1370 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 833 , 99 S.Ct. 114 , 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978); Von Brimer v. Whirlpool Corp., 536 F.2d 838 (9th Cir. 1976); Local 251, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Town Line Sand & Gravel, Inc., 511 F.2d 1198 (1st Cir. 1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arthur Andersen & Co.
v.
Ohio
v.
Ohio
No. 77-1782.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 2, 1978.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Colorado (2) · D. Colorado (1)
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.