Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 546 U.S. 1085 (2006). · Go Syfert
Search
Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 546 U.S. 1085 (2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Merced Irrigation District v. County of Mariposa (caed, 2013-04-23)
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Merced Irrigation District v. County of Mariposa
E.D. Cal. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Empire, 546 U.S. 1085 , 126 S.Ct. 978 , 163 L.Ed.2d 721 (2006). .
cited Cited "see" Sung Eel Chang Auto, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation
3rd Cir. · 2012 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord Nelson v. Quick Bear Quiver, 546 U.S. 1085 , 1085, 126 S.Ct. 1026 , 163 L.Ed.2d 849 (2006); Clark v. K-Mart Corp., 979 F.2d 965, 969 (3d Cir. 1992) (en banc).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Bingham (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 399 F.3d 924, 933 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 546 U.S. 1085 , 163 L.
cited Cited "see" People v. Bingham
Ill. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 399 F.3d 924, 933 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 163 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dudley v. Putnam Investment Funds
S.D. Ill. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 979 , 163 L.Ed.2d 722 (2006) (granting certiorari purely as to the first question presented by the petition for a writ of certiorari in Kircher II, whether 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d) bars appellate review of orders remanding cases removed under SLUSA for reasons set out in 28 U.S.C. *1112 § 1447(c)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Watson (2×)
Me. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
We apply the strong presumption against the waiver of a fundamental constitutional right, see Johnson, 304 U.S. at 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , and conclude that because Blumberg did not receive any warnings or information related to the inherent risks of proceeding to trial without counsel, he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel. [¶ 36] The denial of the right to counsel is a structural error for which harm is presumed because it “casts such doubt on the fairness of the trial process, that it can never be considered harmless error.” Benson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 88 , 1…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kircher
v.
Putnam Funds Trust
No. 05-409.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 6, 2006.
546 U.S. 1085
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.