green
Positive treatment
4.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Amsden
See United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1125 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 905 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 , 28 L.Ed.2d 645 (1971).
examined
Cited "see"
Morrell v. State
(3×)
See United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119 (7th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 905 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 , 28 L.Ed.2d 645 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Anselmo
(2×)
See Healy v. Illinois, 402 U.S. 905 , 91 S.Ct. 1365 , 28 L.Ed.2d 645 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. McCoy (Robert)
(2×)
Defendant's larcenous intent is readily inferable from the surrounding circumstances of his actions ( see People v Olivo , 52 NY2d at 320 n 8; see also People v Jennings , 69 NY2d at 118), including that he lied to police about being the owner of the backpack ( see Penal Law § 155.05[2][b]; see also People v Colon , 28 NY2d 1, 10-11 [1971], cert. denied 402 US 905 [1971]; William C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Leonardo (Pablo)
Defendant's larcenous intent is reasonably inferred from allegations that he picked up a cell phone from the ground, placed it in his jacket, that the phone belonged to another person, that defendant did not have permission to take or [*2] possess it, and that defendant lied to a police officer about having the phone ( see Penal Law § 155.05[2][b]; see also People v Colon , 28 NY2d 1, 10-11 [1971], cert. denied 402 US 905 [1971]; William C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lamont D. Osborn
The district court considered a number of possible offenses that Osborn may have committed here, but we shall limit our consideration to whether Knight had probable cause to believe that Osborn was an accessory after the fact in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3 . 2 That offense has the following elements: “(1) the commission of an underlying offense against the United States; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of that offense; and (3) assistance by the defendant in order to prevent the apprehension, trial, or punishment of the offender.” United States v. Lepanto, 817 F.2d 1463, 1467 (10th Cir.1987…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lawrence Daniel Caldwell, A/K/A Thomas E. Morgan, (Two Cases). United States of America v. Eros A. Timm, (Two Cases)
(2×)
See also United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1126 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 905 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 , 28 L.Ed.2d 645 (1971). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Topco Associates, Inc.
v.
Topco Associates, Inc.
No. 1346.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 19, 1971.
Published
Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ill. Probable jurisdiction noted.