green
Positive treatment
6.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Maine v. Norton
They also note the very modest amount of flex permitted in the application of this rule in that the District Court “retains authority to decide matters not inconsistent with the pen-dency of the appeal.’’ 1 United States v. Hurley, 63 F.3d 1, 23 (1st Cir.1995) (emphasis added); see Spound v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., 534 F.2d 404, 411 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Vincent Hurley, United States of America v. Carlo Demarco, United States of America v. James Saccoccio, United States of America v. Stanley Cirella, United States of America v. Kenneth Saccoccio, United States of America v. Stephen Pizzo, United States of America v. Donna Saccoccia, United States of America v. Anthony Demarco
See Spound v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 534 F.2d 404, 411 (1st Cir.) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Saccoccio
See Spound v. ___ ______ Mohasco Indus., Inc. 534 F.2d 404, 411 (1st Cir.) cert. _____________________ _____ denied, 429 U.S. 886 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Hurley
See Spound v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 534 F.2d 404, 411 (1st Cir.) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Zurenko
See People v. Silvola, 190 Colo. 363 , 547 P.2d 1283 , cert, denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (1976); People v. Macrander, 817 P.2d 579 (Colo.App.1991) (cert. granted, September 23, 1991); see also Crim.P. 24(d)(3).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. O'NEILL
(2×)
See People v. Silvola, 190 Colo. 363 , 547 P.2d 1283 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (1976) (question of abuse of discretion not reached unless defendant can show (1) he exercised all of his peremptory challenges, and (2) he was denied the right to challenge other prospective jurors because he was forced to exhaust his peremptory challenges to excuse the earlier suspect juror).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gladys Ojeda-Toro v. Mario E. Rivera-Mendez
Accord Spound v. Mohasco Industries, 534 F.2d 404, 411 (1st Cir.) (excusable neglect does not encompass “a mere palpable mistake by experienced counsel”), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sabel v. Mead & Johnson Co.
See 4A Moore’s Federal Practice, para. 33-25[5], p. 33-142 (2 ed., 1983 rev.) stating the holding of Daiflon, Inc. v. Allied Chemical Corp., 534 F.2d 221, 227 (10 Cir., 1976), cert. den. 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 239 , 50 L.Ed.2d 168 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Hooker
See Commonwealth v. Reinhart, 466 Pa. 591 , 353 A.2d 848 (1976) cert. denied 429 U.S. 886 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance Pour le Commerce Exterieur v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
See Dai-flon, Inc. v. Allied Chemical Corp., 534 F.2d 221, 226 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 239 , 50 L.Ed.2d 168 (1976); Atlanta Fixture & Sales Co. v. Bituminous Fire & Marine Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
Petroleum Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Imdemnity Co.
See 4A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 33.-25[5], p. 33-142 (2 ed., 1983 rev.) stating the holding of Daiflon, Inc. v. Allied Chemical Corp., 534 F.2d 221, 227 (10 Cir., 1976), cert. den. 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 239 , 50 L.Ed.2d 168 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Siegel v. Bahre (In Re Bahre)
See Spound v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., 534 F.2d 404, 411 (1st Cir.) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (1976). (“[T]he rule [F.R.A.P. 4(a) ] makes no provision for plaintiff’s contention that the defendant was not prejudiced”).
cited
Cited "see"
Marion S. RICE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. NEW ENGLAND COLLEGE, Defendant, Appellee
See Spound v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., 1976, 534 F.2d 404, 411 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 .
cited
Cited "see"
Begin v. Jerry's Sunoco, Inc.
See Spound v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., 534 F.2d 404, 410 (1st Cir. 1976) cert. denied 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (interpreting Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Gillette Co.
See International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. Raychem Corp., 538 F.2d 453, 460 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (1976) (applicant not required to disclose chemical *865 formula of an ingredient well known in the trade which had been included in the patent but was not part of the claimed invention).
cited
Cited "see"
Daiflon, Inc. v. The Honorable Luther Bohanon, Judge of the United States District Court for Thewestern District of Oklahoma
See Daiflon v. Allied Chemical Corp., 534 F.2d 221 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 239 , 50 L.Ed.2d 168 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Singletary
(2×)
See People v. Silvola, Colo., 547 P. 2d 1283 (9) (1976), cert. den. 429 U. S. 886 , 97 S. Ct. 238 , 50 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Patterson v. State
See People v. Silvola, — Colo. — ( 547 P2d 1283 (9)) (1976), cert. den., 429 U. S. 886 (1976). 2.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Aguirre
See also People v. Silvola, 190 Colo. 363 , 547 P.2d 1283 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (1976) (question of abuse of discretion not reached unless defendant can show: (1) he exercised all of his peremptory challenges, and (2) he was denied the right to challenge other prospective jurors because he was forced to exhaust his peremptory challenges to excuse the earlier suspect juror).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pontarelli v. Stone
Compare, e.g., Spound v. Mohasco Inds., Inc., 534 F.2d 404, 411 (1st Cir.) (”[e]xcusable neglect calls for 'circumstances that are unique or extraordinary’ ”), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (1976), with, e.g., United States v. Beacon Bay Enter., Inc., 840 F.2d 921, 923-24 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.1988) (FRAP 26(b)’s "good cause” requires showing of “unique circumstances;” counsel’s “lack of knowledge” of relevant procedural rules does not constitute unique circumstances) (citing Reed v. Kroger, 478 F.2d 1268, 1270 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.1973)). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Trooper Alvin T. Pontarelli v. Walter E. Stone, Trooper Alvin T. Pontarelli v. Walter E. Stone, Trooper Alvin T. Pontarelli v. Walter E. Stone, State of Rhode Island
Compare, e.g., Spound v. Mohasco Inds., Inc., 534 F.2d 404, 411 (1st Cir.) ("[e]xcusable neglect calls for 'circumstances that are unique or extraordinary' "), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (1976), with, e.g., United States v. Beacon Bay Enter., Inc., 840 F.2d 921, 923-24 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.1988) (FRAP 26(b)'s "good cause" requires showing of "unique circumstances;" counsel's "lack of knowledge" of relevant procedural rules does not constitute unique circumstances) (citing Reed v. Kroger, 478 F.2d 1268, 1270 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.1973)) 11 The Plaintiffs' Steering Commi…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Charles R. Christianson and International Trade Services Inc. v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.
According to the court, the translator should have been disclosed since “it [was] an integral part of the disclosure necessary to enable those skilled in the art to ‘make and use the same.’ ” Id. at 791 (emphasis added); compare International Telephone and Telegraph Corp. v. Raychem Corp., 538 F.2d 453, 460 (1st Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (1976) (no need to disclose compound which was not claimed to be part of the invention and was not “essential to the production of the patented” invention).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Sasson Jeans, Inc.
Id. at 917 . (quoting, 9 Moore’s Federal Practice, If 204.13[l.-3] at 4-97-98 (2d.Ed.1985); See also, Spound v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 534 F.2d 404, 411 (1 Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Peake v. First National Bank & Trust Company of Marquette
See also Spound v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., 534 F.2d 404, 411 (1st Cir.), cert. den., 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (1976), where the Court stated: “Excusable neglect calls for ‘circumstances that are unique or extraordinary.’ [Citations omitted.] If this includes a mere palpable mistake by experienced counsel, the requirement would be meaningless.” In Airline Pilots in the Service of Executive Airlines, Inc. v. Executive Airlines, Inc., 569 F.2d 1174 (1st Cir.1978), the court makes the same point: “A mistake made by an attorney or his staff is not, except in unusual …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Wright
Compare People v. Silvola, 190 Colo. 363 , 547 P.2d 1283 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (1976), and Skeels v. People, 145 Colo. 281 , 358 P.2d 605 (1961), with People ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jackie G. Williams and Patricia A. Williams v. United States
See, e. g., Spound v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., 534 F.2d 404 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L.Ed.2d 167 (1976); Boggs v. Dravo Corp., 532 F.2d 897 (3d Cir. 1976); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Kurtenbach, 525 F.2d 1179 (8th Cir. 1975); Morin v. United States, 522 F.2d 8 (4th Cir. 1975); Lashley v. Ford Motor Co., 518 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1975); Martin v. Wainwright, 469 F.2d 1072 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 909 , 93 S.Ct. 1538 , 36 L.Ed.2d 199 (1973); Schaeffer v. First Nat’l Bank, 465 F.2d 234 (7th Cir. 1972); Smith v. United States, 42…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Reinhart
v.
Pennsylvania
v.
Pennsylvania
No. 76-225.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 12, 1976.
Published
Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.