green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.9 score
“accordingly, we held that a county could not be held liable for the actions of the county prosecutor and his detectives when their tortious conduct arose out of the investigation of criminal activity.”
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
MOSLEY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY
accordingly, we held that a county could not be held liable for the actions of the county prosecutor and his detectives when their tortious conduct arose out of the investigation of criminal activity.
discussed
Cited "see"
Kelly Michaels v. State Of New Jersey
See Michaels v. State of New Jersey, 968 F.Supp. 230, 238 (D.N.J.1997). 2 On appeal, the County of Essex contends that under Coleman v. Kaye, 87 F.3d 1491 (3d Cir.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 754 , 136 L.Ed.2d 691 (1997), Cashen v. Spann, 66 N.J. 541 , 334 A.2d 8 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975), and other state cases, the Prosecutor's Office defendants functioned as agents of the State when they engaged in the actions that provide the basis for plaintiff Michaels's suit and that the State is therefore vicariously liable under N.J.S.A. §…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Allen
See United States v. Bowman, 783 F.2d 1192, 1197 (5th Cir. 1986) (“‘[I]t is a well-established principle of mail fraud law that use of the mails after the money is obtained may nevertheless be “for the purpose of executing” the fraud.’”) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Ashdown, 509 F.2d 793, 799 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 (1975)); see also, e.g., United States v. Bruno, 809 F.2d 1097, 1104 (5th Cir.) (“[C]ases construing the mail fraud statute apply to the wire fraud statute as well.”) (alteration added), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
McCabe v. Arcidy
See United States v. Stern, 511 F.2d 1364, 1368 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 (1975); Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas, Etc., 451 F. Supp. at 971 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Bowne of New York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp.
Accord, e.g., United States v. Stern, 511 F.2d 1364, 1367 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 47 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975); Golden Trade S.r.L. v. Lee Apparel Co., 143 F.R.D. 514, 523 (S.D.N.Y.1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Golden Trade v. Lee Apparel Co.
Accord, e.g., United States v. Stern, 511 F.2d 1364, 1367 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 47 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jean Marie St. Gelais
See United States v. Ashdown, 509 F.2d 793, 798 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 47 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
Martin v. Valley National Bank
Accord, e.g., United States v. Stern, 511 F.2d 1364, 1367 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 47 , 46_L.Ed.2d 46 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
Delbridge v. Schaeffer
See Cashen v. Spann, 66 N.J. 541, 552 , 334 A. 2d 8 , cert. den. 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed. 2d 46 (1975), on remand 143 N.J.
discussed
Cited "see"
von Bulow ex rel. Auersperg v. von Bulow
The burden is on Reynolds to show the applicability of the journalist’s privilege since “[i]t is axiomatic that the burden is on a party claiming the protection of a privilege to establish those facts that are essential elements of the privileged relationship----” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 750 F.2d 223, 224 (2d Cir.1984); accord United States v. Stern, 511 F.2d 1364, 1367 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 47 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
Von BULOW BY AUERSPERG v. Von Bulow
The burden is on Reynolds to show the applicability of the journalist's privilege since "[i]t is axiomatic that the burden is on a party claiming the protection of a privilege to establish those facts that are essential elements of the privileged relationship...." In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 750 F.2d 223, 224 (2d Cir.1984); accord United States v. Stern, 511 F.2d 1364, 1367 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 47 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
Alaska Limestone Corp. v. Hodel
See United States v. Zweifel, 508 F.2d 1150 (10th Cir.) cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 47 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975); see abo Hallenbeck v. Kleppe, 590 F.2d 852 (10th Cir.1979). 16 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Burke v. Deiner
See Cashen v. Spann, 66 N.J. 541 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975) (prosecutor’s conduct not absolutely privileged); Earl *472 v. Winne, 14 N.J. 119 (1953); DeGroot v. Muccio, 115 N.J.
cited
Cited "see"
Bayshore Resources Co. v. United States
See note 5, supra. Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing that all the elements of estoppel are present.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Loften
United States v. Bartone, 400 F.2d 459, 461 (6th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1027 , 89 S.Ct. 631 , 21 L.Ed.2d 571 (1969); see United States v. Stern, 511 F.2d 1364 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 47 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
James McElearney v. University of Illinois at Chicago Circle Campus, J. E. Corbally, President, Andd. H. Riddle, Chancellor
See Cusumano v. Ratchford, 507 F.2d 980, 984-87 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975); cf. Plummer v. Board of Regents, 552 F.2d 716 (6th Cir. 1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. James Finis Toney, Jr., and John H. Stewart, Jr.
See U. S. v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75 , 83 S.Ct. 173 , 9 L.Ed.2d 136 (1962). “[P]ostpurchase mailings which are designed to lull the victim into a false sense of security, postpone inquiries or complaints, or make the transaction less suspect are mailings in furtherance of the scheme.” U. S. v. Ashdown, 509 F.2d 793, 800 (CA5), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 47 (1975). 6 The courts in both Maze and LaFerriere took pains to point out that lulling was not involved in those cases and that the mailings in question could not have had a lulling effect.
discussed
Cited "see"
Peter W. Colm and John M. McIntyre v. Cyrus R. Vance, Secretary of State, U. S. Department of State
(2×)
See Cusumano v. Ratchford, 507 F.2d 980 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975); McNeill v. Butz, 480 F.2d 314, 320-21 (4th Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DAMMEN D. MCDUFFIE STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HAKEEM A. CHANCE (12-12-1785, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED)
In State v. Milligan, 71 N.J. 373 (1976), the Supreme Court noted at "common law" there exists a "governmental privilege to withhold the identity of informants who assist law enforcement officials." 11 A-1344-14T2 Id. at 380 ; see also Cashen v. Spann, 66 N.J. 541, 552 , cert. den. 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S. Ct. 48 , 46 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. McDuffie
In State v. Milligan , 71 N.J. 373 , 365 A .2d 914 (1976), the Supreme Court noted at "common law" there exists a "governmental privilege to withhold the identity of informants who assist law enforcement officials." Id. at 380 , 365 A .2d 914 ; see also Cashen v. Spann , 66 N.J. 541 , 552, 334 A .2d 8 , cert. den. 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed. 2d 46 (1975) (recognizing the government's privilege to protect confidential informants).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert Lavezzi v. State of N.J. (072856)
Co., 69 N.J. 244, 248 , 353 A.2d 508 (1976); see also Cashen v. Spann, 66 N.J. 541, 552 , 334 A.2d 8 (finding “it appropriate to regard the defendant officials as State agents where the alleged tortious conduct arose out of the investigation of criminal activity, but ... expressing] no opinion on the question *175 of whether the prosecutor or his detectives can be considered State or county employees for other purposes”), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975); Twp. of Edison v. Hyland, 156 N.J.Super. 137, 141 , 383 A.2d 714 (App.Div.1978) (stating that “[ajlthou…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kakaes v. George Washington University
See also Cusumano v. Ratchford, 507 F.2d 980, 986 (8th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975). (“It cannot serve the public welfare or promote the best interests of the University or its professional staff to have a body of teachers ... the permanent tenures of whom rest upon administrative neglect or oversight ...”) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lisa L. Fitzgerald v. William Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service
(2×)
See, e.g., Sir Speedy, Inc. v. L&P Graphics, Inc., 957 F.2d 1033, 1038 (2d Cir. 1992); Black Law Enforcement Officers Association v. City of Akron, 824 F.2d 475, 482-83 (6th Cir. 1987); see also United States v. Ashdown, 509 F.2d 793, 798 (5th Cir.) ("The statute of limitations is a defense..., not a rule of evidence.... [It] has no bearing on the admissibility of evidence."), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gallagher
Although designated the informer's privilege, the privilege is not that of the informer, but of government "to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with enforcement of that law." Roviario v. United States, 353 U.S. at 59 , 77 S.Ct. at 627 , 1 L.Ed. 2d at 644 ; see also Cashen v. Spann, 66 N.J. 541, 552 , 334 A. 2d 8 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed. 2d 46 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sir Speedy, Inc. v. L & P Graphics, Inc., Neil H. Blatte and Business Service Centers, Inc.
See, e.g., Black Law Enforcement Officers Association v. City of Akron, 824 F.2d 475, 482-83 (6th Cir.1987); see also United States v. Ashdown, 509 F.2d 793, 798 (5th Cir.) (“The statute of limitations is a defense ..., not a rule of evidence_ [It] has no bearing on the admissibility of evidence.”), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 47 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Williams
See also Cashen v. Spann, 66 N.J. 541 , 334 A. 2d 8 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed. 2d 46 (1975); State v. Oliver, 50 N.J. 39 , 231 A. 2d 805 (1967). *628 The trial judge in this case also considered United States v. Green, 670 F. 2d 1148 (D.C.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States of America and Peter P. Calarco, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service v. Daniel Millman, Esq.
See, e.g., United States v. Stern, 511 F.2d 1364, 1367 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 47 , 46 L.Ed.2d 46 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Peter Angelilli, William Butler, Donald Irish, and Donald Ribotsky
(2×)
See also United States v. Ashdown, 509 F.2d 793, 800 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 , 96 S.Ct. 48 , 46 L.Ed.2d 47 (1975) (mailing of stock certificates and confirmations of stock purchases are sufficiently connected to scheme to constitute mail fraud: “post-purchase mailings which are designed to lull the victim into a false sense of security, postpone inquiries or complaints, or make the transaction less suspect are mailings in furtherance of the scheme.”); United States v. MacClain, 501 F.2d 1006, 1011-12 (10th Cir. 1974).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wright
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 74-1408.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1975.
Published
Citer courts: D. New Jersey (1)
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.