green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
9.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1984 ·
…regulatory practices and policies that will serve the 'public interest' today may be quite different from those that were adequate to that purpose in 1910, 1927, or 1934, or that may further the public interest in the future.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1994 ·
…t is fairly well established ... that courts do possess the power to expunge an arrest record ...
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
State v. Filson
But see, e.g., Wester v. State, 528 P.2d 1179, 1183-85 (Alaska 1974), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 60 , 46 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975) (holding that substantial compliance with fifteen-minute observation period was sufficient).
cited
Cited "but see"
United States v. Jack Warledo, Johnson Warledo, Thomas Lee Ahaisse, Gary Larney and Meredith Malcolm Quinn
But see generally U.S. v. Beck, 511 F.2d 997, 1000 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 63 , 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1976).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Mitchell S. Janik
(2×)
t is fairly well established ... that courts do possess the power to expunge an arrest record ...
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
National Ass'n of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission
regulatory practices and policies that will serve the 'public interest' today may be quite different from those that were adequate to that purpose in 1910, 1927, or 1934, or that may further the public interest in the future.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
National Association of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, Western Union Telegraph Company, Forward Communications Corporation, Graphic Scanning Corporation, United States Satellite Broadcasting Company, Inc., Direct Broadcast Satellite Corporation, Satellite Television Corporation, Satellite Syndicated Systems, Inc., Aerospace and Flight Test Coordinating Council, Manufacturers Radio Frequency Advisory Committee, Cbs, Inc., National Black Media Coalition, Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc., California Public Safety Radio Association, Inc., Rca American Communications, Inc., Intervenors. National Association of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Satellite Television Corporation, National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, Satellite Syndicated Systems, Inc., Forward Communications Corporation, U.S. Satellite Broadcasting Co., Televisa, S.A., National Black Media Coalition, Cbs, Inc., Intervenors. County of Los Angeles v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Satellite Television Corporation, Intervenor
regulatory practices and policies that will serve the 'public interest' today may be quite different from those that were adequate to that purpose in 1910, 1927, or 1934, or that may further the public interest in the future.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
The Western Union Telegraph Company v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Itt World Communications, Inc., Western Union International, Inc., Rca Global Communications, Inc., Trans-Lux Corporation, Intervenors (2 Cases). The Western Union Telegraph Company v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Graphnet, Inc., Trans-Lux Corporation, Rca Global Communications, Inc., Intervenors. The Western Union Telegraph Company v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Trans-Lux Corporation, Rca Global Communications, Inc., Intervenors. Trt Telecommunications Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Rca Global Communications, Inc., Western Union Telegraph Company, Western Union International, Inc., Itt World Communications, Inc., Intervenors. Trt Telecommunications Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Rca Global Communications, Inc., Trans-Lux Corporation, Intervenors
(s)tatutory language does not suggest that the commission is to give controlling weight to the mere fact that existing common carriers have the ability to perform the service the applicant wishes to furnish.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Federal Communications Commission
sjtatutory language does not suggest that the commission is to give controlling weight to the mere fact that existing common carriers have the ability to perform the service the applicant wishes to furnish.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Abeskaron
See State v. Finkle, 128 N.J.Super. 199 , 319 A. 2d 733 (App.Div.), aff'd, 66 N.J. 139 , 329 A. 2d 65 (1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 61 , 46 L.Ed. 2d 54 (1975) (judicial notice taken of scientific reliability of VASCAR, as found in earlier case, on appeal from speeding conviction). [4] *694 We are aware that courts should not render advisory opinions or exercise jurisdiction in the abstract.
cited
Cited "see"
George v. United States
See Hogan v. United States, 513 F.2d 170, 175 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 62 , 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Johnson
See United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 925, 927 (10th Cir.) cert. denied 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 63 , 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
Davis v. Department of Treasury
See Hogan v United States, 513 F2d 170 (CA 6, 1975), cert den 423 US 836 ; 96 S Ct 62 ; 46 L Ed 2d 55 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
KELLEY ON BEHALF OF PEOPLE OF STATE OF MICH. v. United States
See Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission v. FCC, 513 F.2d 1142 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 62 , 46 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975); Louisiana v. Lee, 596 F.Supp. 645 (E.D.La.1984), vacated, 758 F.2d 1081 (5th Cir.1985); Holden v. Heckler, 584 F.Supp. 463 (N.D.Ohio 1984); Abrams v. Heckler, 582 F.Supp. 1155 (S.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
Kelley ex rel. Michigan v. United States
See Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission v. FCC, 513 F.2d 1142 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 62 , 46 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975); Louisiana v. Lee, 596 F.Supp. 645 (E.D.La.1984), vacated, 758 F.2d 1081 (5th Cir.1985); Holden v. Heckler, 584 F.Supp. 463 (N.D.Ohio 1984); Abrams v. Heckler, 582 F.Supp. 1155 (S.D.N.Y.1984); City of New York v. Heckler, 578 F.Supp. 1109 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 742 F.2d 729 (2nd Cir.1984); Alabama v. TV A, 467 F.Supp. 791 (N.D.Ala.1979), rev’d on other grounds 636 F.2d 1061 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 837 , 102 S.Ct. 142 , 70 L.Ed.2d 118 …
cited
Cited "see"
SSA Baltimore Federal Credit Union v. Bizon
See Hogan v. United States, 513 F.2d 170, 174 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 62 , 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
City of New York v. Heckler
See Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission v. F.C.C., 513 F.2d 1142 , 1153 (9th Cir.1975) (distinguishing Mellon in same fashion), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 62 , 46 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
Edward J. Kosmal, and Nili H. Kosmal v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
See Hogan v. United States, 513 F.2d 170 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 62 , 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Howe
(2×)
See, United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 925 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 63 , 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1975), and other cases cited therein.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Henderson
See United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 925, 927 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 63 , 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1975); United States v. Bohr, 406 F.Supp. 1218, 1219 (E.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
Middleton v. United States
See United States v. Ross, 511 F.2d 757, 762 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 62 , 46 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975); cf. United States v. Percevault, 490 F.2d 126 (2d Cir. 1974); United States v. Frateilo, 44 F.R.D. 444, 450-51 (S.D.N.Y.1968).
cited
Cited "see"
Sullivan v. Municipality of Anchorage
Alaska Criminal Rule 26(e); see Wester v. State, 528 P.2d 1179 (Alaska 1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 60 , 46 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
Police Commissioner v. Municipal Court of Dorchester District
(2×)
See United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 925 (10th Cir.), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 836 (1975), for a summary of cases involving these various procedures.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert Andrew Glassman
Discovery: See United States v. Ross, 511 F.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1975) cert. denied 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 62 , 46 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975). 4 .
cited
Cited "see"
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Smith
See United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 925 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 (1976); Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.2d 728 (D.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Zalmon Schnitzer
See United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 925 (10th Cir.), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 63 , 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1975); United States v. Rosen, 343 F.Supp. 804 (S.D.N.Y. 1972); United States v. Seasholtz, 376 F.Supp. 1288 (N.D.Okl.1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Duane Thomas McMains
(2×)
See United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 925, 927 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 63 , 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1976); Rogers v. Slaughter, 469 F.2d 1084 -85 (5th Cir. 1972).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Rolfe
See, e.g., Wester v. State, 528 P.2d 1179, 1181 (Alaska 1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 (1975) (statute that sets forth prerequisites for validity of chemical analysis specifies “the foundational facts necessary for the admissibility of a chemical analysis of breath”); State v. Sinclair, 474 S.W.2d 865, 868 (Mo. Ct. App. 1971) (statute that sets forth when chemical testing is valid provides “statutory substitutes for a common law foundation for *12 the introduction of evidence of breath analyses for blood alcohol”); Otte v. State, 108 N.W.2d 737, 740 (Neb. 1961) (statute that provide…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rabadi
See Schnitzer, 567 F.2d at 540 ; see also United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 925, 927-28 (10th Cir.) (acquittal itself does not constitute extraordinary circumstances), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 63 , 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. G
See, e.g., United States v. Schnitzer, 567 F.2d 536, 538 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 907 , 98 S.Ct. 1456 , 55 L.Ed.2d 499 (1978); Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.2d 728, 740 (D.C.Cir.1969); see also United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 925, 927 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 63 , 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. G, 1
See, e.g., United States v. Schnitzer, 567 F.2d 536, 538 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 907 , 98 S.Ct. 1456 , 55 L.Ed.2d 499 (1978); Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.2d 728, 740 (D.C.Cir.1969); see also United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 925, 927 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 63 , 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sadiqq v. Bramlett
See, e.g., United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 925 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 63 , 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1975); Coleman v. United States Department of Justice, 429 F.Supp. 411 (N.D.Ind. 1977); United States v. Dooley, 364 F.Supp. 75 (E.D.Pa.1973).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. C. A.
See, e. g., United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 925 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 63 , 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1975): Crow v. Kelley, 512 F.2d 752 (8th Cir. 1975); Urban v. Breier, 401 F.Supp. 706 (E.D.Wis.1975); United States v. Dooley, 364 F.Supp. 75 (E.D.Pa.1973); Loder v. Municipal Court for San Diego Judi cial Dist., 17 Cal.3d 859 , 553 P.2d 624 , 132 Cal.Rptr. 464 (1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1109 , 97 S.Ct. 1143 , 51 L.Ed.2d 562 (1977); State v. Anonymous, 36 Conn.Sup. 9 , 409 A.2d 150 (1980); District of Columbia v. Hudson, 404 A.2d 175 (D.C.1979); Stephens v. Van Arsdale, 22…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. CA
See, e. g., United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 925 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 63 , 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1975); Crow v. Kelley, 512 F.2d 752 (8th Cir. 1975); Urban v. Breier, 401 F.Supp. 706 (E.D.Wis.1975); United States v. Dooley, 364 F.Supp. 75 (E.D.Pa.1973); Loder v. Municipal Court for San Diego Judicial Dist., 17 Cal.3d 859 , 553 P.2d 624 , 132 Cal.Rptr. 464 (1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1109 , 97 S.Ct. 1143 , 51 L.Ed.2d 562 (1977); State v. Anonymous, 36 Conn.Sup. 9 , 409 A.2d 150 (1980); District of Columbia v. Hudson, 404 A.2d 175 (D.C.1979); Stephens v. Van Arsdale, 227…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lincoln Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Federal Communications Commission
See also Washington Utilities & Transportation Comm’n v. FCC, 513 F.2d 1142, 1164 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 62 , 46 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975) (“When, as here, the issue is resolved by adoption of a general policy for uniform application in the regulation of a nationwide industry, rulemaking is an entirely appropriate means for ‘a particularization of the Commission’s conception of the “public interest” sought to be safeguarded by Congress in enacting the Communications Act of 1934.’ ”) (quoting Nat’l Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 218 , 63 S.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The Lincoln Telephone And Telegraph Company v. Federal Communications Commission
See also Washington Utilities & Transportation Comm'n v. FCC, 513 F.2d 1142, 1164 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 62 , 46 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975) ("When, as here, the issue is resolved by adoption of a general policy for uniform application in the regulation of a nationwide industry, rulemaking is an entirely appropriate means for 'a particularization of the Commission's conception of the "public interest" sought to be safeguarded by Congress in enacting the Communications Act of 1934.' ") (quoting Nat'l Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 218 , 63 S.Ct. 997, 1010 , 87…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
See, e. g., Specialized Common Carrier Services, 29 FCC.2d 870, 31 FCC.2d 1106 (1971), aff’d. sub nom., Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission v. Federal Communications Commission, 513 F.2d 1142 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied sub nom., National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 62 , 46 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975); MCI Communications Corp. v. Am.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alpers' Jobbing Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
(2×)
We assess the fairness and propriety of the election and the ballots cast by Melinas, Dubinsky, and Sacus in light of the “totality of the circumstances,” LaCrescent Constant Care Center, Inc. v. NLRB, 510 F.2d 1319, 1324 (8th Cir. 1975); see also NLRB v. Decoto Aircraft, Inc., 512 F.2d 758, 761 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 , 96 S.Ct. 63 , 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wester
v.
Alaska
v.
Alaska
No. 74-1538.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1975.
Published
Citer courts: D.C. Circuit (4) · Seventh Circuit (2)
Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied.