green
Positive treatment
3.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Davis
See United States v. Lisk, 522 F.2d 228, 230-31 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1078 , 96 S. Ct. 865 , 47 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
McMillian v. State
See United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 , 91 n. 6, 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 2552 n. 6, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980), citing United States v. Lisk, 522 F.2d 228 (7th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1078 , 96 S.Ct. 865 , 47 L.Ed.2d 89 (1976). 4 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Debbie L. And Gary Givens
See United States v. Lisk, 522 F.2d 228, 230 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1078 , 96 S.Ct. 865 , 47 L.Ed.2d 89 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
Rakas v. Illinois
See United States v. Lisk, 522 F. 2d 228 (CA7 1975), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 1078 (1976) (noted in 64 Geo.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
4934, Inc. v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
See, e.g., Louviere v. Shell Oil Co., 509 F.2d 278, 284-285 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1078 , 96 S.Ct. 867 , 47 L.Ed.2d 90 (1976) (employer’s insurer entitled to indemnity from third-party tortfeasor on ground of unjust enrichment); Estridge v. Stovall, 704 S.W.2d 653 (Ky.Ct.App.1986) (disabled worker not entitled to simultaneous recovery under state compensation laws and federal black lung statutes; state may recover excess payments on theory of unjust enrichment); Campbell v. Blue Diamond Mining, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 279 (Ky.Ct.App.1985) (disabled worker barred, by principles of un…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
National Westminster Bancorp NJ v. Leone
See e.g., Allis-Chambers Manufacturing Co. v. Gulf & Western Industries, Inc., 527 F.2d 335, 357 (7th Cir.1975), cert. den., 423 U.S. 1078 , 96 S.Ct. 865 , 47 L.Ed.2d 89 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Seinfeld v. Hospital Corp. of America
See also Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company v. Gulf & Western Industries, Inc., 527 F.2d 335 (7th Cir.1975) (to be charged with a § 16(b) violation, defendant must have been an insider prior to the initial purchase or sale), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 1078 , 96 S.Ct. 865 , 47 L.Ed.2d 89 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ca9 1981
See also Ohio Drill & Tool Co. v. Johnson, 498 F.2d 186, 194-95 (6th Cir. 1974) (directing Smolowe rule be used in profit computation under state insider trading statute). 71 William cites one case as disapproving the Smolowe rule, namely, Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. v. Gulf & Western Industries, Inc., 527 F.2d 335 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1078 , 96 S.Ct. 865 , 47 L.Ed.2d 89 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Salvucci
(2×)
See, e. g., United States v. Lisk, 522 F. 2d 228 (CA7 1975) (Stevens, J.), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 1078 (1976), although in that case the property was ultimately found not to have been illegally seized.
Jenks
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 74-1328.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 19, 1976.
Consideration, Took.
Published
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.