green
Positive treatment
7.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967
1996
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Franklin v. Bison Recovery Group, Inc.
See United States v. Fuentes, 563 F.2d 527, 532 (2d Cir. 1977) (“[S]ince recorded evidence is likely to have a strong impression upon a jury and is susceptible to alteration, we have adopted a general standard, namely, that the government ‘produce clear and convincing evidence of authenticity and accuracy’ as a foundation for the admission of such recordings.” (quoting United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 440 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 (1967)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gigante
See United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 436 (2d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967)(explaining that physical incompetence claims are not covered by federal competency statutes); United States v. Jones, 876 F.Supp. 395, 397 (N.D.N.Y. 1995)(“court is unable to locate, despite much effort, any statutory basis to make a determination with regard to physical competency to stand trial”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gigante
See United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 437 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
Butler v. United States
See United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 440 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967); see also United States v. Shabazz, 724 F.2d 1536, 1539-40 (11th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cusmano
See United States v. Knohl, 379 F. 2d 427, 440 (2 Cir.), cert. den. 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed. 2d 465 (1967); Addison v. United States, 317 F. 2d 808, 815 (5 Cir.1963), cert. den. 376 U.S. 905 , 84 S.Ct. 658 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 605 , reh. den. 376 U.S. 966 , 84 S.Ct. 1121 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 984 (1964); Todisco v. United States, 298 F. 2d 208 (9 Cir.1961), cert. den. 368 U.S. 989 , 82 S.Ct. 602 , 7 L.Ed. 2d 527 (1962); Cape v. United States, 283 F. 2d 430, 435 (9 Cir.1960); and Monroe v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 228 , 234 F. 2d 49, 55 , cert. den. 352 U.S. 873 , 77 S.Ct. 94 , 1 L.Ed. 2d …
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gerena
See United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 440 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Audibility of Certain Recorded Conversations
See United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 440 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
Arthur W. Bowley v. Stotler & Co. And John Mulach C/o Stotler & Co.
(2×)
See Ratay v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Co., 378 F.2d 209, 212 (3d Cir.) (erroneous in struction on critical issue), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967); Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., 350 F.2d 479, 486 (3d Cir.1965) (review instruction to prevent miscarriage of justice), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1009 , 87 S.Ct. 1350 , 18 L.Ed.2d 436 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Adrian Cuesta, A/K/A \Andy\" Cuesta
See United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427 (2d Cir.), Cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967); Pilcher v. United States, 113 F. 248 (5th Cir. 1902).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Cuesta
See United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967); Pilcher v. United States, 113 F. 248 (5th Cir. 1902).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Young
Cir. 1967); accord, United States v. Knohl, 379 F. 2d 427 (2d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 (1967). *569 Therefore this contention is without merit and defendant’s first assignment of error is overruled.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Dante
U. S. v. Carlson, 423 F.2d 431 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 400 U.S. 847 , 91 S.Ct. 93 -95, 27 L.Ed.2d 84 (1970); see U. S. v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427 (2nd Cir. 1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Don Marionneaux, Hugh Marionneaux, Harold Sykes and Ben Trantham
See United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967); 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"
United States v. Nick John, United States of America v. Victor Padratzik, Etc., United States of America v. Charles Bernstein Etc., United States of America v. Steve Lekometros, Etc.
See United States of America v. Eugene Wesley Howard, 504 F.2d 1281, 1287 (8th Cir. 1974), United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. John
See United States of America v. Eugene Wesley Howard, 504 F.2d 1281, 1287 (8th Cir. 1974), United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
Schwartz v. H. I. Romnes
“The maxim is not to be so applied as to narrow the words of the statute to the exclusion of cases, which those words, in their ordinary acceptation, or in that sense in which the legislature has obviously used them, would comprehend.” United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 35, 43 , 5 L.Ed. 37 (1820); see Precise Imports Corp. v. Kelly, 378 F.2d 1014, 1017 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967); Cotheal v. Brouwer, 5 N.Y. 562, 567-568 (1851).
discussed
Cited "see"
Schwartz v. Romnes
This would seem to provide all the more reason that the contribution in question be within Section 460. 4 The rule that penal statutes are to be strictly construed does not aid the appellants here. 'The maxim is not to be so applied as to narrow the words of the statute to the exclusion of cases, which those words, in their ordinary acceptation, or in that sense in which the legislature has obviously used them, would comprehend.' United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 35, 43 , 5 L.Ed. 37 (1820); see Precise Imports Corp. v. Kelly, 378 F.2d 1014, 1017 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. …
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Villa
See United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 441-442 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967) (dictum).” 416 F.2d at 114-115 (footnote omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Dye
See United States v. Knohl, 379 F. 2d 427, 440 (2 Cir.), cert. den. 389 U. S. 973 , 88 S. Ct. 472 , 19 L.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Herbert Preston Harmon
Hall v. United States, 410 F.2d 653, 658 (4th Cir.1969); see United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 434 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Frank Crisona, Anthony Delyra, John Delyra, and Frank Lloyd Parks
See United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 441-442 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967) (dictum).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert Bradwell
See United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 438-439 (2 Cir.), cert, denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Douglas John Nelsen
See, e.g., Precise Imports Corp. v. Kelly, 378 F.2d 1014 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967) (imposing requirement that the object be designed primarily for use as a weapon); Taylor v. McManus, 661 F.Supp. 11 (E.D.Tenn.1986) (finding “butterfly” knives not covered by the Act).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jose Antonio Giraldo
See, e.g., United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 442 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Bellamy v. Bradley
See, e.g., Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp., 377 F.2d 344, 347 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 464 (1967).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Bellamy v. Bradley
See, e.g., Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp., 377 F.2d 344, 347 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 464 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jerlian Watch Company, Inc. v. United States Department of Commerce and United States Department of the Interior
See, e. g., Precise Imports Corp. v. Kelly, 218 F.Supp. 494 (S.D.N.Y.1963), aff’d, 378 F.2d 1014 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967); Croton Watch Co. v. *691 Laughlin, 208 F.2d 93 (2d Cir. 1953).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Hill v. State
See, e.g., United States v Knohl, 379 F2d 427, 434-435 (CA2), cert denied, 389 US 973 , 19 L Ed 2d 465 , 88 S Ct 472 (1967); United States ex rel.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Drope v. Missouri
See, e. g., United States v. Knohl, 379 F. 2d 427, 434-435 (CA2), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 973 (1967); United States ex rel.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Herbert R. Jacobs
Compare United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 439-441 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hoban
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 605.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 4, 1967.
Carl L. Shipley, Rufus W. Peckham, Jr., and Samuel Resnicoff for petitioner., Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.
Published
Ct. Cl. Certio-rari denied.