green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Poindexter ex rel. Poindexter v. United States
See Romero v. Ten Eyck-Shaw, Inc., 400 F.2d 81, 82-83 (9th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 629 , 21 L.Ed.2d 566 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
Poindexter v. United States
See Romero v. Ten Eyck-Shaw, Inc., 400 F.2d 81, 82-83 (9th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 629 , 21 L.Ed.2d 566 (1969). 9 We are satisfied that the district court erred in applying Arizona substantive law on the basis of the receipt by the heirs of Arizona workmen's compensation benefits.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles D. Griggs
See Samuels v. United States, 398 F.2d 964, 968 (5th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 630 , 21 L.Ed.2d 566 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
In the Matter of Grand Jury Empanelled February 14, 1978. Appeal of United States of America
See United States v. Zakutansky, 401 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 628 , 21 L.Ed.2d 562 (1969); United States v. Lyons, 442 F.2d 1144 (CA1 1971). *866 The authorities cited by the Supreme Court explain the application of this principle.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Wallace L. Williams
See Samuels v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 398 F.2d 964, 969 , cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 630 , 21 L.Ed.2d 566 (1969).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Louis W. Whitley
See, United States v. Hunt, 265 F.Supp. 178, 190, 191 (W.D.Tex.1967), aff’d, 400 F.2d 306 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 626 , 21 L.Ed.2d 566 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
Couch v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. Zakutansky, 401 F. 2d 68, 72 (CA7 1968), cert. denied, 393 U. S. 1021 (1969); United States v. Lyons, 442 F. 2d 1144 (CA1 1971). [10] A later Court commenting on the Boyd privilege noted that "the papers and effects which the privilege protects must be the private property of the person claiming the privilege, or at least in his possession in a purely personal capacity. " United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694, 699 (1944).
discussed
Cited "see"
Richard v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation
See, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 5 v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 398 F.2d 248 (3rd Cir. 1968), cert. denied 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S. Ct. 628 , 21 L.Ed.2d 565 ; Marquez v. Omaha District Sales Office, 313 F. Supp. 1404 (D.C.Neb.1970); Nishiyama v. North American Rockwell Corp., 49 F.R.D. 288 (C.D.Cal.1970); Stebbins v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 382 F.2d 267 (4th Cir. 1967), cert. denied 390 U.S. 910 , 88 S.Ct. 836 , 19 L.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Thomas Ralph Farese
See Samuels v. United States, 398 F.2d 964 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. den. 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 630 , 21 L.Ed.2d 566 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
Payne v. Ford Motor Company
See, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, etc. v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 398 F.2d 248 (3rd Cir. 1968) cert denied 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 628 , 21 L.Ed.2d 565 ; Marquez v. Omaha District Sales Office, 313 F.Supp. 1404 (D.C.Neb.1970); Nishiyama v. North American Rockwell Corp., 49 F.R.D. 288 (C.D.Cal.1970); Stebbins v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 382 F.2d 267 (4th Cir. 1967), cert. denied 390 U.S. 910 , 88 S.Ct. 836 , 19 L.Ed.2d 880 (1968).
cited
Cited "see"
Nishiyama v. North American Rockwell Corp.
See, IBEW, Local Union No. 5 v. EEOC, 398 F.2d 248 (3rd Cir., 1968), cert. denied 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 628 , 21 L.Ed.2d 565 (1969); Vigil v. American Tel. & Tel.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Merrell
United States v. Baldridge, 281 F.Supp. 470 (S.D.Tex.1968); Dorfman v. Rombs, 218 F.Supp. 905 (N.D.Ill.1963); see United States v. Zakutansky, 278 F.Supp. 682 (N.D.Ind.) aff’d 401 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1968) cert. denied 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 628 , 21 L.Ed.2d 565 (1969).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Laxalt v. McClatchy
Co., supra, pg. 446, 313 U.S. at 497 , 61 S.Ct. at 1022 ; see also Romero v. Ten Eyck-Shaw, Inc., 400 F.2d 81, 82 (9th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 629 , 21 L.Ed.2d 566 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Anthony J. Vesich, Jr.
See also Hunt v. United States, 400 F.2d 306, 307-08 (5th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 629 , 21 L.Ed.2d 566 (1969) (holding that a person who had given information to the government, resulting in the filing of a complaint, and who was expected to testify in future legal proceedings, was a witness within the meaning of section 1503 during the period between the preliminary hearing and convening of a grand jury); Odom v. United States, supra (holding that an individual was a witness after he had testified in a federal court hearing and was expected to testify in another hear…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mitchell
See, e. g., Hunt v. United States, 400 F.2d 306 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 629 , 21 L.Ed.2d 566 (1969); Stein v. United States, 337 F.2d 14 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 907 , 85 S.Ct. 889 , 13 L.Ed.2d 795 (1965); United States v. Grunewald, 233 F.2d 556 (2d Cir. 1956), rev’d on other grounds, 353 U.S. 391 , 77 S.Ct. 963 , 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957); Odom v. United States, 116 F.2d 996 (5th Cir.), rev’d on other grounds, 313 U.S. 544 , 61 S.Ct. 957 , 85 L.Ed. 1511 (1941); Smith v. United States, 274 F. 351 (8th Cir. 1921). 18 Section 1510 was intended to *1…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Marina VOUTSIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
(2×)
See also Local 5, IBEW v. EEOC, 398 F.2d 248 , 249 (3rd Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 628 , 21 L.Ed.2d 565 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
George P. Bradley v. United States
Compare Samuels v. United States, 398 F.2d 964, 967-969 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 630 , 21 L.Ed.2d 566 (1969) ; Langford v. United States, supra note 77, 178 F.2d at 54-55 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Zakutansky
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 693.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 13, 1969.
Bernard H. Sokol for petitioners., Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, Joseph M. Howard, and John M. Brant for the United States et al.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.