green
Positive treatment
5.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Sotola v. State
(2×)
But see, United States v. Allison, 481 F.2d 468, 472 (5th Cir.), aff'd. after remand, 487 F.2d 339 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 982 , 94 S.Ct. 2383 , 40 L.Ed.2d 759 (1974).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Lightner
(4×)
See United States v. Allison, 481 F.2d 468 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 982 , 94 S.Ct. 2383 , 40 L.Ed.2d 759 (1974), (court explicitly rejected a rule of per se reversal for Rule 24(c) violations).
discussed
Cited "see"
Passaic Daily News, T/a the Herald News v. National Labor Relations Board
(2×)
See Wichita Eagle & Beacon Publishing Co., 199 N.L.R.B. 360 , 367 (1972), enf. denied on other grounds, 480 F.2d 52 (10th Cir.1973), ce rt. denied, 416 U.S. 982 , 94 S.Ct. 2383 , 40 L.Ed.2d 758 (1974). 17 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. James Hillard, Robert Allen and Samuel Hillard
(2×)
Accord, United States v. Allison, 481 F.2d 468, 472 (5th Cir.), aff’d after remand, 487 F.2d 339 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 982 , 94 S.Ct. 2383 , 40 L.Ed.2d 759 (1974); cf. United States v. Evans, supra, 635 F.2d 1124, 1127-28 (defendant may stipulate to substitution after deliberations have begun); Leser v. United States, 358 F.2d 313, 317 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 802 , 87 S.Ct. 10 , 17 L.Ed.2d 49 (1966) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Floyd Rideau, and Highlands Insurance Co., Intervenor-Appellant v. Parkem Industrial Services, Inc.
(2×)
Co., 682 F.Supp. 1434, 1447 (N.D.Ill.1988); see also United States v. Allison, 481 F.2d 468, 472 (5th Cir.) (calling the analogous criminal rule on discharging alternates “a mandatory requirement that should be scrupulously followed”), aff'd after remand, 487 F.2d 339 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 982 , 94 S.Ct. 2383 , 40 L.Ed.2d 759 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Dry Land Marina, Inc
See, e.g., Phillips, supra, citing United States v Allison, 481 F2d 468 (CA 5, 1973), aff'd after remand 487 F2d 339 (CA 5, 1973), cert den 416 US 982 ; 94 S Ct 2383 ; 40 L Ed 2d 759 (1974), and United States v Hayutin, 398 F2d 944 (CA 2, 1968), cert den 393 US 961 ; 89 S Ct 400 ; 21 L Ed 2d 374 (1968), subsequent app sub nom United States v Nash, 414 F2d 234 (CA 2, 1969), cert den 396 US 940 ; 90 S Ct 375 ; 24 L Ed 2d 242 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Smith
(2×)
See also United States v. Allison, 481 F.2d 468, 472 (5th Cir.), aff’d after remand, 487 F.2d 339 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 982 (1974), in which the court concluded that an alternate juror’s attendance at jury deliberations, even though the juror had been instructed not to participate, was reviewable on appeal in spite of counsel’s agreement to the procedure.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kenneth W. Kaminski, United States of America v. Stephen E. Mount, United States of America v. George P. Fahr, United States of America v. John M. Brownrigg, United States of America v. Douglas C. Payne
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Allison, 481 F.2d 468 (5th Cir. 1973), aff'd after remand, 487 F.2d 339 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 982 , 94 S.Ct. 2383 , 40 L.Ed.2d 759 (1974); United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Watson, 669 F.2d 1374 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Johnson v. Duckworth, 650 F.2d 122 (7th Cir. 1981) (in state court, trial alternate's presence during jury deliberations did not deny appellants a fair trial).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kaminski
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Allison, 481 F.2d 468 (5th Cir. 1973), aff’d after remand, 487 F.2d 339 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 982 , 94 S.Ct. 2383 , 40 L.Ed.2d 759 (1974); United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Watson, 669 F.2d 1374 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Johnson v. Duckworth, 650 F.2d 122 (7th Cir. 1981) (in state court, trial alternate’s presence during jury deliberations did not deny appellants a fair trial).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shafer v. A. I. T. S., Inc.
(2×)
This regulation presumably was intended to further the efforts of the Civil Aeronautics Board, whose statutory duty is to “foster sound economic conditions, promote economic and efficient service at reasonable charges, and avoid destructive competitive prices,” Las Vegas Hacienda, Inc. v. C.A.B., 298 F.2d 430, 432-33 , (9th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 885 , 82 S.Ct. 1158 , 8 L.Ed.2d 286 ; see also Voyager 1000 v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 489 F.2d 792 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 982 , 94 S.Ct. 2383 , 40 L.Ed.2d 759 (1974), by preventing travel agents or air carriers from …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Voyager 1000
v.
Civil Aeronautics Board
v.
Civil Aeronautics Board
No. 73-1033.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 13, 1974.
Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.