green
Positive treatment
6.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Montoya v. State
See Carr v. State, 475 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1099 , 93 S.Ct. 919 , 34 L.Ed.2d 682 (1972); Hatchell v. State, 679 S.W.2d 614, 615 (Tex.App. — Beaumont 1984, no pet.).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Peterson
(2×)
See Selinger v. Governor of Maryland, 266 Md. 431, 435 , 293 A.2d 817, 819 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1111 , 93 S.Ct. 922 , 34 L.Ed.2d 693 (1972); Robey v. Broersma, 181 Md. 325, 341, 29 A.2d 827 , 830 (1943).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles E. Hamilton, United States of America v. Charles Eugene Hamilton
(2×)
See United States v. Moore, 466 F.2d 547, 548 (3d Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1111 , 93 S.Ct. 920 , 34 L.Ed.2d 692 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert J. Brack
See United States v. Vorhees, 593 F.2d 346, 350 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 936 , 99 S.Ct. 2061 , 60 L.Ed.2d 665 (1979) (citing United States v. Jones, 464 F.2d 1118, 1122 (8th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1111 , 93 S.Ct. 920 , 34 L.Ed.2d 692 (1973)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Orville N. Hicks
See United States v. Jones, 464 F.2d 1118, 1121-22 (8th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1111 , 93 S.Ct. 920 , 34 L.Ed.2d 692 (1973); United States v. Godel, 361 F.2d 21, 24 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 838 , 87 S.Ct. 87 , 17 L.Ed.2d 72 (1966).
discussed
Cited "see"
Singletary v. United States
See United States v. Gradsky, supra. Similarly, the government’s reliance on cases which mandate a defendant’s presence at trial, e. g., United States v. Moore, 466 F.2d 547, 548 (3rd Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1111 , 93 S.Ct. 920 , 34 L.Ed.2d 692 (1973), and United States v. Fitzpatrick, 437 F.2d 19, 27 (2d Cir.1970), is unfounded.
discussed
Cited "see"
Catholic Charities of Archdiocese of Dubuque v. Zalesky
(2×)
See United States v. Johnson, 466 F.2d 537, 538 (8 Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1111 , 93 S.Ct. 921 , 34 L.Ed.2d 693 (1973) (inference of participation in a crime, from presence, companionship and conduct before and after crime is committed); State v. Hansen, 203 N.W.2d 216 (Iowa 1972) (inference arising from the presence of a specified percentage of alcohol in defendant’s blood); State v. Van Voltenburg, 260 Iowa 200 , 147 N.W.2d 869 (1967) (inference or presumption of criminal intent from the possession of burglar tools).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Berentje C. M. Pohlman
See, United States v. Johnson, 466 F.2d 537 (8th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1111 , 93 S.Ct. 921 , 34 L.Ed.2d 693 (1973). 7 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry LUMITAP, Defendant-Appellant
See, e.g., United States v. Moore, 466 F.2d 547, 548 (3d Cir.1972) (noting that neither the federal rules nor due process “vest[s] a right of absence in a defendant”), ce rt. denied, 409 U.S. 1111 , 93 S.Ct. 920 , 34 L.Ed.2d 692 (1973); United States v. Fitzpatrick, 437 F.2d 19, 27 (2d Cir.1970) (maintaining that neither the federal rules nor the case law supports a defendant’s right to “absent himself from the courtroom, especially when his identification is the focal point of his trial”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frommhagen
v.
Hodgson, Secretary of Labor
v.
Hodgson, Secretary of Labor
No. 72-5520.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 8, 1973.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.