green
Positive treatment
4.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Harry Nicks v. United States
See United States v. Deutsch, 321 F.Supp. 1356 , aff'd, 451 F.2d 98 (2d Cir.1971), ce rt. denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 682 , 30 L.Ed.2d 667 (1972).
cited
Cited "see"
Republican Party of State of Conn. v. Tashjian
See Bode v. National Democratic Party, 452 F.2d 1302, 1309 (D.C.Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 684 , 30 L.Ed.2d 668 (1972).
cited
Cited "see"
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,845 Martin Fox v. Reich & Tang, Inc. And Daily Income Fund, Inc.
See United States v. Deutsch, 451 F.2d 98, 108 (2d Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 682 , 30 L.Ed.2d 667 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wolf v. Banco Nacional De Mexico
See United States v. Fishbein, 446 F.2d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 683 , 30 L.Ed.2d 667 (1972); Chapman v. Rudd Paint & Varnish Co., 409 F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir.1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
Enka B. V. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
(2×)
See Thiokol Chemical Corp. v. Burlington Industries, 448 F.2d 1328 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 684 , 30 L.Ed.2d 668 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
Enka BV of Arnhem, Holland v. EI DU PONT, ETC.
(2×)
See Thiokol Chemical Corp. v. Burlington Industries, 448 F.2d 1328 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 684 , 30 L.Ed.2d 668 (1972).
cited
Cited "see"
USM Corp. v. Standard Pressed Steel Co.
See Thiokol Chemical Corp. v. Burlington Indus., Inc., 448 F.2d 1328, 1330-31 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 684 , 30 L.Ed.2d 668 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
Warner-Jenkinson Company, and H. Kohnstamm & Company, Inc., Plaintiffs v. Allied Chemical Corporation
(2×)
See Thiokol Chemical Corp. v. Burlington Indus., Inc., 448 F.2d 1328, 1330-31 (3d Cir. 1971), cert, denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 684 , 30 L.Ed.2d 668 (1972).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. George Stofsky
See United States v. Deutsch, 451 F.2d 98, 116-17 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 682 , 30 L.Ed.2d 667 (1972).
cited
Cited "see"
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,667 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Advance Growth Capital Corporation
See United States v. Deutsch, 451 F.2d 98, 108, 111 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 682 , 30 L.Ed.2d 667 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nevada v. Watkins
Farrand ed. 1911)); see also Bode v. National Democratic Party, 452 F.2d 1302, 1307-08 (D.C.Cir.1971) (“The compromise met the objections of the less populous states to a distribution of national political power solely on a population basis notwithstanding the federated character of the new nation, formed of sovereign States.”), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 684 , 30 L.Ed.2d 668 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State of Nevada, Richard H. Bryan, Governor of Nevada, Paul Laxalt, United States Senator, Chic Hecht, United States Senator, Barbara Vucanovich, United States Representative in Congress, Harry Reid, United States Representative in Congress v. James D. Watkins, Secretary of the United States Department of Energy, State of Nevada v. U.S. Department of Energy, James D. Watkins, Secretary of the United States Department of Energy, Arizona Public Service Company, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, Carolina Power & Light Company, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Detroit Edison Company, Duke Power Company, Duquesne Light Company, Florida Power & Light Company, Gulf States Utilities Company, Iowa Electric Light & Power Company, Madison Gas and Electric Company, New York Power Authority, Northeast Utilities, Northern States Power Company, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Public Service Electric & Gas Company, Union Electric Company, Virginia Power, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Power and Light Company, and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Intervenors
Farrand ed. 1911)); see also Bode v. National Democratic Party, 452 F.2d 1302, 1307-08 (D.C.Cir.1971) ("The compromise met the objections of the less populous states to a distribution of national political power solely on a population basis notwithstanding the federated character of the new nation, formed of sovereign States."), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 684 , 30 L.Ed.2d 668 (1972). 55 Nor can Nevada complain that its lack of representation on the Conference Committee created a defect in the political process.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William Ruffin
(2×)
See, e. g., United States v. Deutsch, 451 F.2d 98, 118-19 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 682 , 30 L.Ed.2d 667 (1972); United States v. Bryan, 483 F.2d 88, 93-94 (3d Cir. 1973) (en banc); United States v. Musgrave, 483 F.2d 327, 332-33 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Kelly, 258 F. 392, 402 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 249 U.S. 616 , 39 S.Ct. 391 , 63 L.Ed. 803 (1919); Pigman v. United States, 407 F.2d 237, 239 , (8th Cir. 1969); United States v. Azadian, 436 F.2d 81, 82 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Coppola, 526 F.2d 764, 776 (10th Cir. 1975); Gray v. United States, 2…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. F. W. Standefer
See, e. g., United States v. Deutsch, 451 F.2d 98, 118-19 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 682 , 30 L.Ed.2d 667 (1972); United States v. Bryan, 483 F.2d 88 (3d Cir. 1973) (en banc); United States v. Musgrave, 483 F.2d 327, 331-32 (5th Cir. 1973); Kelly v. United States, 258 F. 392, 402 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 249 U.S. 616 , 39 S.Ct. 391 , 63 L.Ed. 803 (1919); Pigman v. United States, 407 F.2d 237 (8th Cir. 1969); United States v. Azadian, 436 F.2d 81 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Coppola, 526 F.2d 764, 776 (10th Cir. 1975); Gray v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 15…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mario Lobo
See also United States v. Deutsch, 451 F.2d 98, 116 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 682 , 30 L.Ed.2d 667 (1972); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Edmund G. Seergy v. Kings County Republican County Committee
See, e. g., Election Law Sec. 131(2) (b) (2) 8 Our decision is not inconsistent with the recent decisions of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in State of Georgia v. National Democratic Party, 447 F.2d 1271 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 858 , 92 S.Ct. 109 , 30 L.Ed.2d 101 (1971), and Bode v. National Democratic Party, 452 F.2d 1302 (D.C.Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 684 , 30 L.Ed.2d 668 (1972), rejecting Fourteenth Amendment challenges to the method of apportionment of delegates to the 1972 Democratic National Convention.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Giamo
v.
Florida
v.
Florida
No. 71-549.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 10, 1972.
Published
Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.