green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.0 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
Bell v. City of Milwaukee
But see United States v. Castro-Ayon, 537 F.2d 1055 (9th Cir.1976), certiorari denied, 429 U.S. 983 , 97 S.Ct. 501 , 50 L.Ed.2d 594 . .
discussed
Cited "but see"
Patrick Bell, Sr., Etc. v. City of Milwaukee, Howard Johnson and Edwin Shaffer, Patrick Bell, Sr., Etc. v. Thomas Grady, Jr., Patrick Bell, Sr., Etc. v. City of Milwaukee
But see United States v. Castro-Ayon, 537 F.2d 1055 (9th Cir.1976), certiorari denied, 429 U.S. 983 , 97 S.Ct. 501 , 50 L.Ed.2d 594 84 In contrast to the limited admissibility of a witness' extrajudicial statements under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Model Code of Evidence and Uniform Rules of Evidence treat all out-of-court statements of a person present at trial and available for cross-examination as an exception to the hearsay rule, see Model Code Rule 503(b); Uniform Rule 63(1) 85 As at least one commentator has observed: If any prior statement of a witness is to be regularly admitted…
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Whalen
The statement ÍS similar to the “prior testimony” which may be admitted under Rule 801(d)(1)(A), except for the fact that it was not made at a “trial, hearing or similar proceeding.” United States v. Luke, 13 M.J. 958 (A.F.C.M.R.1982); United States v. Livingston, 661 F.2d 239 (D.C.Cir.1981); United States v. Ragghianti, 560 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir.1977); Martin v. United States, 528 F.2d 1157 (4th Cir.1975); United States v. Tavares, 512 F.2d 872 (9th Cir.1975); but see United States v. Castro-Ayon, 537 F.2d 1055 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 983 , 97 S.Ct. 501 , 50 L.Ed.2d 594 (1976…
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Tyler
(2×)
But see Buzynski v. Oliver, 538 F.2d 6 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 984 , 97 S.Ct. 503 , 50 L.Ed.2d 596 (1976), expressing doubt as to the continued validity of Leland v. Oregon, supra .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Gravina
should the facts suggest that a probationer is the object of constant police harassment, the need for deterring such misconduct would justify such an extension of the rule
discussed
Cited "see"
Zellers v. United States
(2×)
See Terrell v. United States, 361 A.2d 207, 211 (D.C.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 984 , 97 S.Ct. 501 , 50 L.Ed.2d 594 (1976) (reversing when evidence of value presented “a close question”).
cited
Cited "see"
Oscar Williams, Jr. v. Salvador Godinez
See United States v. DeVaughn, 541 F.2d 808, 809-10 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 984 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Jenkins
(2×)
See United States v. Edwards, 539 F.2d 689, 692 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 984 (witness' intoxication at time out-of-court statement was made goes to weight not admissibility where witness testified that he believed statement accurately reflected his recollection at time statement was made).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Paquette
People v. Kubasiak, 98 Mich. App. 529, 536-37 , 296 N.W.2d 298, 302 (1980) (interpreting Michigan Rule of Evidence 803(5) which is identical to V.R.E. 803(5)); see United States v. Edwards, 539 F.2d 689, 691-92 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 984 (1976), and United States v. Williams, 571 F.2d 344, 348 (6th Cir. 1978) (giving same interpretation to F.R.E. 803(5), which is identical to V.R.E. 803(5)). *4 In the present case, the three requirements were met.
cited
Cited "see"
In re Saco Local Development Corp.
See Buzynski v. Oliver, 538 F.2d 6, 7 (1st Cir.), cert, denied, 429 U.S. 984 , 97 S.Ct. 503 , 50 L.Ed.2d 596 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Saco Local Development Corp., Leather Comfort Corporation, Kirstein Leather Co., D/B/A Saco Tanning Corp., Kirstein Split Corporation, Debtors. Roderick R. Rovzar, Trustee
See Buzynski v. Oliver, 538 F.2d 6, 7 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 984 , 97 S.Ct. 503 , 50 L.Ed.2d 596 (1976).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Miguel Felix-Jerez
(4×)
See United States v. Edwards, 539 F.2d 689 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 984 , 97 S.Ct. 501 , 50 L.Ed.2d 594 (1976), where we held: Appellant also claims the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Newman’s signed statement describing the events leading to the crime.
cited
Cited "see"
Walker v. United States
See, Homcy v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 332 , 536 F.2d 360 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 984 (1976); Rumph v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 855 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eurell v. United States
Denton v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 188, 198 (1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963 (1975); DeBow v. United States, supra, 193 Ct. Cl. at 503-04 , 434 F.2d at 1335 ; accord, Homcy v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 332, 337-39 , 536 F.2d 360, 364-65 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 984 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sua
See also, United States v. Castro-Ayon, 537 F.2d 1055, 1057 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 983 , 97 S.Ct. 501 , 50 L.Ed.2d 594 (1976) (conference committee "consciously intended to include grand-jury proceedings within the ambit of `other proceedings.'"). [40] Pub.L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Clifton Toland v. Joanne Bush
Compare United States v. Larry, 536 F.2d 1149, 1152 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 984 (1976) (prosecutor's bad faith causing mistrial will create double jeopardy problems). 14 We also find no confrontation problem created by the inability to cross-examine the live testimony of Perez heard by the jury at the second trial.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Pierre Fouche, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant
(2×)
See also United States v. Edwards, 539 F.2d 689, 691 (9th Cir.) (delay is only one factor to be considered in determining voluntariness), cer t. denied, 429 U.S. 984 , 97 S.Ct. 501 , 50 L.Ed.2d 594 (1976). 4 Under section 3501(c), therefore, a confession is not inadmissible because of delay, if it is otherwise voluntary and made within six hours following arrest or detention.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lee v. United States
See also Homcy v. United States, 210 Ct.Cl. 332, 337-38 , 536 F.2d 360, 363-64 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 984 , 97 S.Ct. 502 , 50 L.Ed.2d 595 (1976); Denton v. United States, 204 Ct.Cl. 188, 195 (1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963 , 95 S.Ct. 1949 , 44 L.Ed.2d 449 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Talmage
(2×)
See also United States v. Larry, 536 F.2d 1149 (6th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 984 , 97 S.Ct. 502 , 50 L.Ed.2d 595 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kaiser v. Secretary of the Navy
See, e. g., Homcy v. United States, 536 F.2d 360 , 210 Ct.Cl. 332 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 984 , 97 S.Ct. 502 , 50 L.Ed.2d 595 (1976), O’Callahan v. United States, 451 F.2d 1390 , 196 Ct.Cl. 556 (1971), Mathis v. Laird, 324 F.Supp. 885 (M.D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State in Interest of Causey
See, e. g., Buzynski v. Oliver, 538 F.2d 6 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 984 , 97 S.Ct. 503 , 50 L.Ed.2d 596 (1976); Hill v. Lockhart, 516 F.2d 910 (8th Cir. 1975); Ramer v. United States, 390 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1968).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Terrell
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 76-5339.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 29, 1976.
Published
Citer courts: D. Massachusetts (1)
Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.