green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
8.1 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“[W]e see no reason to depart from the time-honored tradition of considering only *842 those arguments presented to us.”
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Ralphfield Hudson
passage of nine hours between warnings and the waiver" not sufficient "to require that fresh warnings be administered
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Zambrana v. United States
e see no reason to depart from the time-honored tradition of considering only 842 those arguments presented to us.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bahman Mansoori, Mark Cox, Mohammad Mansoori, Kenneth Choice, and Terry Young
See Boles v. Foltz, 816 F.2d 1182, 1135-36 (6th Cir.) (even if it was error to admit second confession elicited improperly after defendant had requested attorney, error was harmless because, inter alia, second confession was cumulative of first), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S.Ct. 167 , 98 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mansoori, Bahman
See Boles v. Foltz, 816 F.2d 1132, 1135-36 (6th Cir.) (even if it was error to admit second confession elicited improperly after defendant had re- quested attorney, error was harmless because, inter alia, second confession was cumulative of first), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S. Ct. 167 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Kouzmine
See United States v. Buck, 813 F.2d 588, 591 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S.Ct. 167 , 98 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. De Masi
(2×)
See United States v. Lebron-Gonzalez, 816 ___ _____________ _______________ F.2d 823, 830 (1st Cir.) (no plain error because judge did not supplant jury as fact finder as a result of inadvertent slip of tongue in jury charge), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 843 , _____ ______ and cert. denied 484 U.S. 857 (1987). ___ _____ ______ Moreover, as we have noted, the evidence against DeMasi, Martel and Papa was overwhelming.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. De Masi
See United States v. Lebron-Gonzalez, 816 F.2d 823, 830 (1st Cir.) (no plain error because judge did not supplant jury as fact finder as a result of inadvertent slip of tongue in jury charge), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 843 , 108 S.Ct. 135 , 98 L.Ed.2d 92 , and cert. denied 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S.Ct. 166 , 98 L.Ed.2d 120 (1987). 55 Moreover, as we have noted, the evidence against DeMasi, Martel and Papa was overwhelming.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. DeMasi
See United States v. Lebron-Gonzalez, 816 F.2d 823, 830 (1st Cir.) (no plain error because judge did not supplant jury as fact finder as a result of inadvertent slip of tongue in jury charge), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 843 , 108 S.Ct. 135 , 98 L.Ed.2d 92 , and cert. denied 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S.Ct. 166 , 98 L.Ed.2d 120 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Johnston
See United States v. Diaz, 814 F.2d 454 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857 (1987); United States v. Paul, 808 F.2d 645 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537 (7th Cir. 1983); United States v. Samet, 794 F. Supp. 178 (E.D.
cited
Cited "see"
James v. Pierce v. United States
See Andrews v. United States, 817 F.2d 1277 , 1278-79 n. 1 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S.Ct. 166 , 98 L.Ed.2d 120 (1987). 2 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert D. Tackett
See Andrews v. United States, 817 F.2d 1277 , 1278-79 n. 1 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857 (1987). 21 We agree with the district court that Mr. Tackett is not entitled to collateral relief.
discussed
Cited "see"
Craig v. State
See Boles v. Foltz, 816 F.2d 1132 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S.Ct. 167 , 98 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987); Traylor v. State, 596 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla. 1992); Kight v. State, 512 So.2d 922, 926 (Fla. 1987) ("[A]lthough it was error to admit Kight's initial statement to Officer Weeks, this error was harmless because the unwarned statement was merely cumulative to the subsequent properly admitted statements."), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 929 , 108 S.Ct. 1100 , 99 L.Ed.2d 262 (1988); Segarra v. State, 596 So.2d 740 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1992); State v. Bates, 804 S.W.2d 868 (Tenn. 1991), cert. denie…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. One Parcel of Property Located at 18 Perkins Road
See United States v. Buck, 813 F.2d 588, 593 (2d Cir.1987) (Lumbard, J.) (holding that the "particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of a catch-all description in a search warrant, unaccompanied by any list of particular items or any other limiting language"), cer t. denied, 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S.Ct. 167 , 98 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987). 7 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert Aguirre
See United States v. Colunga, 786 F.2d 655, 658 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S.Ct. 165 , 98 L.Ed.2d 120 (1987); United States v. Bradsby, 628 F.2d 901, 905 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dyer
See Andrews v. United States, 817 F.2d 1277, 1279 (7th Cir.1987) ("use" appearing in statute pertaining to "use” of communication facility to commit drug crime, 21 U.S.C. § 843 (b), must be given its ordinary meaning and includes receiving as well as placing telephone calls), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S.Ct. 166 , 98 L.Ed.2d 120 (1987); United States v. Rodriguez-Ramirez, Til F.2d 454, 457 (9th Cir.1985) (same); United States v. Cordero, 668 F.2d 32 , 43 n. 16 (1st Cir.1981) (same). 37 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Brown
See United States v. Buck, 813 F.2d 588 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S.Ct. 167 , 98 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987) (warrant only described crimes and gave no limitation on the kind of evidence to be sought).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. George Story and Curtis Jones
See United States v. *997 Colunga, 786 F.2d 655 (5th Cir.1986), (defendant entitled to withdraw plea after receiving incorrect sentencing information), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S.Ct. 165 , 98 L.Ed.2d 120 (1987); United States v. Alejandro, 569 F.2d 1200 (2d Cir.1978) (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Paul Stout
See Andrews v. United States, 817 F.2d 1277, 1280 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S.Ct. 166 , 98 L.Ed.2d 120 (1987); Ryan, 810 F.2d at 657 . *273 Moreover, Stout received greater relief than he was entitled to under Rule 32(c)(3)(D) by the fact that the district court ordered the probation office to delete its offense severity rating in Stout’s presen-tence report.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pearson v. Callahan
See, e. g., United States v. Diaz, 814 F. 2d 454, 459 (CA7), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 857 (1987); United States v. Bramble, 103 F. 3d 1475 (CA9 1996); United States v. Pollard, 215 F. 3d 643, 648-649 (CA6), cert. denied, 531 U. S. 999 (2000); State v. Henry, 133 N. J. 104, 627 A. 2d 125 (1993); State v. Johnston, 184 Wis. 2d 794 , 518 N. W. 2d 759 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re H.V.
See, e.g., Boles v. Foltz, 816 F.2d 1132, 1135 (6th Cir.) (holding derivative evidence obtained through custodial interrogation following invocation of right to counsel inadmissible), ce rt. denied, 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S.Ct. 167 , 98 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987); United States v. Downing, 665 F.2d 404, 407-10 (1st Cir.1981) (same); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
in the Matter of H v.
Thus, we do not read Hass as supporting the State’s argument that the gun in this case should not be suppressed in the State’s case-in-chief. 18: See, e.g. , Boles v. Foltz , 816 F.2d 1132, 1135 (6th Cir.) (holding derivative evidence obtained through custodial interrogation following invocation of right to counsel inadmissible), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 857 (1987); United States v. Downing , 665 F.2d 404, 407-10 (1st Cir. 1981) (same); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Shapiro
While the phrase "documents and records" certainly is broad in scope, "we have upheld warrants authorizing the seizure of ... generic classes of items where a more precise description was not possible in the circumstances [and] the warrants ... identified a specific illegal activity to which the items related." United States v. George, 975 F.2d 72, 76 (2d Cir.1992); see also United States v. Buck, 813 F.2d 588, 590 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re JWP Inc. Securities Litigation
See, e.g., United States v. Lebron-Gonzalez, 816 F.2d 823, 830-31 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 843 , 108 S.Ct. 135 , 98 L.Ed.2d 92 and 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S.Ct. 166 , 98 L.Ed.2d 120 (1987); United States v. Lewis, 716 F.2d 16, 18-21 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 996 , 104 S.Ct. 492 , 78 L.Ed.2d 686 (1983). [1] These AUSA plaintiffs are: AUSA Life Insurance Company, Crown Life Insurance Company, The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York and The Prudential Life Insurance Company of America.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Harris
See, e.g., Boles v. Foltz, 816 F.2d 1132 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857 (1987) (finding as harmless error improper admission of confession and its derivative evidence obtained through interrogation following invocation of rights under Edwards); United States v. Downing, 665 F.2d 404 (1st Cir. 1981) (holding any evidence obtained as a result of violation of suspect's Fifth Amendment right to have counsel present during interrogation is inadmissible); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Millan-Colon
See also United States v. Buck, 813 F.2d 588, 590 (2d Cir.1987) (noting that courts “tend to tolerate a greater degree of ambiguity where law enforcement agents have done the best that could reasonably be expected under the circumstances, have acquired all the descriptive facts which a reasonable investigation could be expected to cover, and have insured that all those facts were included in the warrant.”) (quoting United States v. Young, 745 F.2d at 759 ), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S.Ct. 167 , 98 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nellsch v. State
See United *433 States v. Carey, 884 F.2d 547, 549 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied 494 U.S. 1067 , 110 S.Ct. 1786 , 108 L.Ed.2d 787 (1990) (failure to inform defendant of mandatory period of supervision prior to sentencing was harmless error where defendant learned of such requirement prior to sentencing and failed to object); compare United States v. Hourihan, 936 F.2d 508 (11th Cir.1991) (court reversed lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw plea which had been entered based on erroneous understanding of the mandatory minimum penalty); United States v. Pierce, 893 F.2d 669 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States ex rel. Farrell v. Haws
See also Boles v. Foltz, 816 F.2d 1132, 1135 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857 , 108 S.Ct. 167 , 98 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987), where in a fifth amendment context the court held that where, at arraignment, an accused “stated that he had an attorney and that he wanted that attorney present at the preliminary hearing,” nevertheless “[h]is statements did not express ‘his desire to deal with the police only through counsel.' ” (quoting Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. at 484 , 101 S.Ct. at 1885 ).
Easley
v.
Koscinski
v.
Koscinski
No. 87-5021.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 5, 1987.
Published
Citer courts: Seventh Circuit (1) · N.D. Indiana (1)
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.