green
Positive treatment
5.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mark Chambers
The court in Rocha noted that "an appellate court will not ordinarily limit itself to the testimony received at a pretrial motion to suppress, but will also consider pertinent testimony given at the trial." Id. at 1021 (citations omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Pamela A. Habhab
See Pritchard v. United States, 386 F.2d 760, 766 (8th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1004 , 88 S.Ct. 1247 , 20 L.Ed.2d 104 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Pamela A. Habhab
(2×)
See Pritchard v. United States, 386 F.2d 760, 766 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1004 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Garth W. Kunkler
See Rocha v. United States, 387 F.2d 1019, 1022-23 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1004 , 88 S.Ct. 1247 , 20 L.Ed.2d 104 (1968) (similar facts held to give arresting officers reasonable cause to believe defendant was or had been violating federal laws).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kunkler
See Bocha v. United States, 387 F.2d 1019, 1022-23 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1004 , 88 S.Ct. 1247 , 20 L.Ed.2d 104 (1968) (similar facts held to give arresting officers reasonable cause to believe defendant was or had been violating federal laws).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Thornton
Accord, Rocha v. United States, 387 F.2d 1019, 1022 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1004 , 88 S.Ct. 1247 , 20 L.Ed.2d 104 (1968) (by proceeding under an invalid warrant, the officers had not “elected” to proceed on basis of warrant alone; underlying probable cause sufficient for warrantless arrest); United States v. Gearhart, 326 F.2d 412, 413 (4th Cir. 1964) (“misconceived reliance by officers upon an unnecessary warrant which is later found invalid” did not vitiate arrest sustainable on underlying probable cause).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Doyle L. Shepherd
See Pritchard v. United States, 386 F.2d 760, 764 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1004 , 88 S.Ct. 1247 , 20 L.Ed.2d 104 (1968); Atkinson v. United States, supra. Therefore, Shepherd’s conduct comes within the scope of the mail fraud statute.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Eldon Wayne McKuin United States of America v. Walter Jerrold Frey
See Pritchard v. United States, 386 F.2d 760, 764 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, Borchelt v. United States, 390 U.S. 1004 , 88 S.Ct. 1247 , 20 L.Ed.2d 104 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Roncari Industries, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission
Furthermore, it is well recognized “that [t]he purpose of [the procedural requirements of § 8-3 (a)] is fairly and sufficiently to apprise those who may be affected by the proposed action of the nature and character of the proposed action so as to enable them to prepare intelligently for the hearing.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bridgeport v. Plan & Zoning Commission, supra, 277 Conn. 276 , quoting Kleinsmith v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 157 Conn. 303, 310 , 254 A.2d 486 (1968); see also Passero v. Zoning Commission, 155 Conn. 511, 514 , 235 A.2d 660 (1967), cert. denied, 390 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Timber Trails Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission
It is dictated by common sense for protection of an established neighborhood to be subject to change only after fair notice.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Hutchison v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 138 Conn. 247, 251 , 83 A.2d 201 (1951), quoting Kane v. Board of Appeals of Medford, 273 Mass. 97, 104 , 173 N.E. 1 (1930); see also Passero v. Zoning Commission, 155 Conn. 511, 514 , 235 A.2d 660 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1004 , 88 S. Ct. 1248 , 20 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rabiner & Jontow, Inc., aka Abbe Rabiner, Inc.
v.
Federal Trade Commission
v.
Federal Trade Commission
No. 1100.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 1, 1968.
Erwin Feldman for petitioner. Solicitor General Griswold and James Mcl. Henderson for respondent.
Published
C. A.
2d Cir. Certiorari denied.