green
Positive treatment
5.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Paul D. Wood
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
For example, in United States v. Brand, 775 F.2d 1460 (11th Cir.1985), the court stated that Sec. 1503 proscribes conduct "which produces or which is capable of producing an effect that prevents justice from being duly administered." Id. at 1465 ; see alsoCole v. United States, 329 F.2d 437, 439 (9th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 954 , 84 S.Ct. 1630 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964).
cited
Cited "see"
Richard Short Oil Co., Inc. v. Texaco, Inc.
See American Oil Company v. F.T.C., 325 F.2d 101, 104 (7th Cir.1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 954 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 498 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Leiffer
See Smith v. United States, 324 F.2d 879, 881-82 (D.C.Cir.1963) (Burger, J.) (footnotes omitted), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 954 , 84 S.Ct. 1632 , 12 L.Ed.2d 498 (1964), which states: The proffer of a living witness is not to be mechanically equated with the proffer of inanimate evidentiary objects illegally seized.
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. State
Given this posture, we do not believe that the trial court's technical error injuriously affected the substantial rights of appellant. § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1975); Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Co., 103 Fla. 605 , 137 So. 886 (1931); Reliable Services, Inc. v. Taft, 247 So.2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); accord, Myrick v. United States, 332 F.2d 279 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 952 , 84 S.Ct. 1630 , 12 *541 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); Sauget v. Johnston, 315 F.2d 816 (9th Cir.1963). [6] As is our duty in death penalty cases, we have thoroughly examined the entire record in this case and find t…
cited
Cited "see"
Charles Emmet Parrish v. Edward Cox, Individually, and D/B/A Cox Oil Company, Inc., and Cox Oil Company, Inc.
See generally American Oil Company v. Federal Trade Commission, 325 F.2d 101 (7th Cir. 1963) cert, denied 377 U.S. 954 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 498 (1964). 6 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Maness v. Meyers
(2×)
See Cole v. United States, 329 F. 2d 437 (CA9), cert. denied, 377 U. S. 954 (1964): United States v. Cioffi, 493 F. 2d 1111, 1119 (CA2), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 917 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mitchell
(2×)
See Cole v. United States, 329 F.2d 437, 443 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 954 , 84 S.Ct. 1630 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); Craig v. United States, 81 F.2d 816, 822 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 298 U.S. 637 , 56 S.Ct. 670 , 80 L.Ed. 1371 (1936). *1252 Cf. United States v. Alo, 439 F.2d 751, 754 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 850 , 92 S.Ct. 86 , 30 L.Ed.2d 89 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Sabrina Peterson, Shirley Ann Davenport, Lonzo Harden, Art Williams, Roland Onaghinor
(2×)
Id. (citation omitted); see also Cole v. United States, 329 F.2d 437, 440 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 954 , 84 S.Ct. 1630 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, cmt. n. 4(i).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cain v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
See also, American Oil Co. v. F.T.C., 325 F.2d 101 (7th Cir.1963), cert. den., 377 U.S. 954 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 498 (1964) (defendant’s competitive price allowances granted to dealers in predetermined areas did not constitute price discrimination); and Mowery v. Standard Oil Co. of Ohio, 463 F.Supp. 762, 766 (N.D.Ohio 1976), aff'd, 590 F.2d 335 (6th Cir. 1978) (affirmed directed verdict for defendant holding that a Temporary Competitive Allowance Program was lawful under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and § 13 of the Robinson-Patman Act).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
First Comics, Inc., and Cross-Appellee v. World Color Press, Inc., and Cross-Appellant
See, e.g., American Oil Co. v. FTC, 325 F.2d 101, 104 (7th Cir.1963), certiorari denied, 377 U.S. 954 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 498 (1964) (price discrimination does not per se constitute antitrust violation; plaintiff still must show a lessened ability to compete).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.
See, e. g., American Oil Co. v. FTC, 325 F.2d 101 (7th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 954 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 498 (1964); Willow Run Garden Shop, Inc. v. Mr. Christmas, Inc., 1973-2 Trade Cases ¶ 74,86 (D.N.J. 1973), rev’d on other grounds, (3d Cir. Aug. 5,1974) (disposition noted at 500 F.2d 1401 ).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Edward J. Sweeney & Sons, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc.
See also, American Oil Co. v. FTC, 325 F.2d 101, 104 (7th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 954 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 498 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Alfred Fayer
(2×)
See also Cole v. United States, 329 F.2d 437 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 954 , 84 S.Ct. 1630 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Kelly
See Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 475 , 41 S.Ct. 574, 576 , 65 L.Ed. 1048, 1051 (1921), where the Supreme Court pointed out that the fourth amendment was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority and "was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies"; see also United States *290 v. Goldberg, 330 F. 2 d 30, 35 (3 Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 953 , 84 S.Ct. 1630 , 12 L.Ed. 2 d 497 (1964); Barnes v. United States, 373 F. 2 d 517, 518 (5 Cir.1967); United States v. Harper, 458 F. 2 d 891 (7 Cir. 1971); People v. Horman, 22 N.Y. 2 d 378, 292 N…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Kelly
Ed. 1048, 1051 (1921), where the Supreme Court pointed out that the fourth amendment was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority and “was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies”; see also United States v. Goldberg, 330 F. 2d 30, 35 (3 Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U. S. 953 , 84 S. Ct. 1630 , 12 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Epstein
See, e.g., United States v. Goldberg, 330 F.2d 30, 35 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 377 U.S. 953 , 84 S.Ct. 1630 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); United States v. Guterma, 272 F.2d 344 (2d Cir. 1959). 3 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cole
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 1002.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 1, 1964.
Joseph A. Ball, Max F. Deutz and Herman F. Selvin for petitioner., Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Richard W. Schmude for the United States.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.