green
Positive treatment
3.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967
1996
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Chas. Pfizer & Co.
But see, e. g., United States v. Pennsylvania Refuse Removal Ass’n, 242 F.Supp. 794, 798 (E.D.Pa.1965), aff’d, 357 F.2d 806 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 961 , 86 S.Ct. 1588 , 16 L.Ed.2d 674 (1966); United States v. Green, 143 F.Supp. 442, 445 (S.D.Ill.1956), aff’d, 246 F.2d 155 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 355 U.S. 871 , 78 S.Ct. 122 , 2 L.Ed.2d 76 (1957). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cruz
See State v. Athorn, 46 N.J. 247, 251-52 , 216 A.2d 369 , cert. denied, 384 U.S. 962 , 86 S.Ct. 1589 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1966) (upholding jury verdict because juror’s statements, during deliberations, that “cops take bribes” demonstrated a shared experience rather than bias against a defendant police officer). [Id. at 368-369, 727 A.2d 468 .] Here, we know the juror had an opinion about the police stopping motorists but such an opinion did not go to the heart of the State’s case and there was no indication that her opinion had been shared with other jurors.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Adams
See State v. Athorn, 46 N.J. 247, 251-52 , 216 A. 2d 369 , cert. denied, 384 U.S. 962 , 86 S.Ct. 1589 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1966) (upholding jury verdict because juror's statements, during deliberations, that "cops take bribes" demonstrated a shared experience rather than bias against a defendant police officer).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Shomo
See State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225, 288 , 548 A. 2d 939 (1988) (holding that verdict may be challenged only on manifestation of racial or religious bigotry or if juror discussed aspects of case based on personal knowledge not in evidence), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1017 , 109 S.Ct. 813 , 102 L.Ed.2d 803 (1989); accord State v. Athom, 46 N.J. 247, 251-52 , 216 A.2d 369 , cert. denied, 384 U.S. 962 , 86 S.Ct. 1589 , 16 L.Ed.2d 674 (1966).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Williams
See State v. Athorn, 46 N.J. 247, 253 (1966), cert. den., 384 U.S. 962 , 86 S.Ct. 1589 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1966).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Allied Asphalt Paving Co.
See United States v. Pennsylvania Refuse Removal Association, 357 F.2d 806 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 961 , 86 S.Ct. 1588 , 16 L.Ed.2d 674 (1966).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eastex Aviation, Inc. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Company
See, e. g., Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341 , 83 S.Ct. 1246 , 10 L.Ed.2d 389 (1963) (securities market subject to antitrust regulation) ; United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass’n, 322 U.S. 533 , 64 S.Ct. 1162 , 88 L.Ed. 1440 (1944) (insurance business subject to antitrust regulation) ; Pacific Seafarers, Inc. v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc., 131 U.S.App.D.C. 226 , 404 F.2d 804 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1093 , 89 S.Ct. 872 , 21 L.Ed.2d 784 (1969) (service industries subject to antitrust regulation) ; accord, United States v. Pennsylvania Refuse Removal Service, 24…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. John Richard Pratt, Donald C. Wilson A/K/A \Snooks\" John Richard Pratt"
(2×)
See United States v. Pennsylvania Refuse Removal Ass’n, 242 F.Supp. 794, 798 (E.D.Pa. 1965), aff’d., 357 F.2d 806 (3 Cir.), cert. den., 384 U.S. 961 , 86 S.Ct. 1588 , 16 L.Ed.2d 674 (1966).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Bel v. Chernoff
See, e. g., Sperling v. Willingham, 353 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1965), cert. denied 384 U.S. 962 , 86 S.Ct. 1591 , 16 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
National Labor Relations Board v. General Electric Company, and International Union of Electrical, Radio, and MacHine Workers, Afl-Cio, Intervenor
(2×)
See, e. g., Independent Stave Co. v. NLRB, 352 F.2d 553 (8th Cir. 1965), cert, denied, 384 U.S. 962 , 86 S.Ct. 1558 , 16 L.Ed.2d 674 (1966) (by implication).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Independent Stave Co., Inc.
v.
National Labor Relations Board
v.
National Labor Relations Board
No. 1212.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 31, 1966.
Sam Elson for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come for respondent.
Published
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.