green
Positive treatment
Circuit Split
Quoted verbatim 4×
8.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2007 ·
…a person who was not named in the wiretap order and was not a party to a conversation intercepted during that tap is not an 'aggrieved person' and may not move to suppress information derived from it.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
H & B Equipment Company, Inc. v. International Harvester Company
But see Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795, 801-803 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2977 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977).
cited
Cited "but see"
Williams v. DeKalb County
But see Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795, 801-803 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2977 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Funderburk
a person who was not named in the wiretap order and was not a party to a conversation intercepted during that tap is not an 'aggrieved person' and may not move to suppress information derived from it.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Mullen
a person who was not named in the wiretap order and was not a party to a conversation intercepted during that tap is not an 'aggrieved person' and may not move to suppress information derived from it.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Benjamin
a person who was not named in the wiretap order and was not a party to any conversation intercepted during that tap is not an 'aggrieved person' and may not move to suppress information derived from it
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Kaczowski
a person who was not named in the wiretap order and was not a party to any conversation intercepted during that tap is not an "aggrieved person" and may not move to suppress information derived from it.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gotti
See United States v. Fury, 554 F.2d 522, 526 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977); United States v. Hinton, 543 F.2d 1002 , 1011 n. 13 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 980 , 97 S.Ct. 493 , 50 L.Ed.2d 589 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gallo
See United States v. Fury, 554 F.2d 522, 526 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977). 4.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gallo
See United States v. Fury, 554 F.2d 522, 526 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977). 4.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Morgan
See United States v. Fury, 554 F.2d 522, 533 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977) and 436 U.S. 931 , 98 S.Ct. 2831 , 56 L.Ed.2d 776 (1978); United States v. Aloi, 449 F.Supp. 698, 727 (E.D.N.Y.1977).
cited
Cited "see"
R.C. Dick Geothermal Corp. v. Thermogenics, Inc.
See Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795, 803 (9th Cir.1976), cert, denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2977 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977). 2.
cited
Cited "see"
Texas Oil & Gas Corp. v. Hagen
See Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc. v. Ballard, 540 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977); Export Ins.
cited
Cited "see"
Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Association v. Klamath Medical Service Bureau
See Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795, 803 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2977 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. Klamath Medical Service Bureau
See Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795, 803 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2977 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gweldon Lee Paschall and All Intervenors v. The Kansas City Star Company
(2×)
See Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795, 803 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2977 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977) (exercise of contractual right of termination "can hardly be deemed 'unfair' ").
cited
Cited "see"
Murphy Tugboat Company v. Crowley
See Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795, 812 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2977 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Murphy Tugboat Co. v. Crowley
See Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795, 812 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2977 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
National Constructors Ass'n v. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n
See In Re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, 541 F.2d 1127 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2976 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977). 14 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Velasquez v. Levingston
Rule 279 states in part: “(f)ailure to submit a definition or explanatory instruction shall not be deemed a ground for reversal of the judgment unless a substantially correct definition or explanatory instruction has been requested in writing and tendered by the party complaining of the judgment.” Rule 279, T.R.C.P.; see Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc. v. Ballard, 540 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d n. r. e.) cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977); First State Bank and Trust Company of Edinburg v. George, 519 S.W.2d 198 (Tex.Civ.App…
discussed
Cited "see"
Tripper Corp. v. Chrysler Corp.
See Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795, 803 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2977 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977); see also Golden Gate Acceptance Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 597 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Summa Corporation
See Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795, 801-02 (9th Cir. 1976), Cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2977 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Marquette Nat. Bank
See Central Bank of Clayton v. Clayton Bank, 424 F.Supp. 163 (E.D.Mo.1976), aff’d, 553 F.2d 102 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977) and Mountain Grove Cemetery v. Norwalk Vault Co., 428 F.Supp. 951 (D.Conn.1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Summa Corp.
See Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795, 801-02 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2977 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Photovest Corporation, an Indiana Corporation, and Cross-Appellant v. Fotomat Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and Cross-Appellee
See Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795, 813-14 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, *712 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2977 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 .
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation
See In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity6 Litigation, 541 F.2d 1127 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2976 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977); In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, 498 F.2d 271 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1057 , 95 S.Ct. 640 , 42 L.Ed.2d 654 (1974); In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, 341 F.Supp. 376 (J.P.M.L.1972). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
City of Houston v. Riggins
See Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc. v. Ballard, 540 S.W.2d 380, 388-389 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d n. r. e.), cert. denied 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 ; Northshore Bank v. Palmer, 525 S.W.2d 718 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, writ ref’d n. r. e.).
discussed
Cited "see"
Campbell v. Davis
See Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc. v. Ballard, 540 S.W.2d 380, 388-389 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d n. r. e.), cert. denied 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 ; Northshore Bank v. Palmer, 525 S.W.2d 718 (Tex.Civ.App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, writ ref’d n. r. e.).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Aloi
See United States v. Fury, 554 F.2d 522, 530-31 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, Quinn v. U. S., 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977); United States v. Vento, 533 F.2d 838 , 858-59 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. Principie, 531 F.2d 1132, 1138-39 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 905 , 97 S.Ct. 1173 , 51 L.Ed.2d 581 (1977); cf. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108 , 85 S.Ct. 741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965); United States v. Lewis, 556 F.2d 385 (6th Cir. 1977).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Anthony Ricco, A/K/A \Tony Bragiole\""
See United States v. Fury, 554 F.2d 522, 531-32 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Strauss Ex Rel. Servico, Inc. v. American Holdings, Inc.
See, e.g., Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795 , 801-03 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2977 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977); America’s Best Cinema Corp. v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Inc., 347 F.Supp. 328, 331-32 (N.D.Ind.1972); Windsor Theatre Co. v. Walbrook Amusement Co., 94 F.Supp. 388 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Donald Carson, United States of America v. Anthony Gallagher
See, e.g., United States v. Fury, 554 F.2d 522, 533 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Angelo Ruggiero, Gene Gotti and John Carneglia
No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 12, reprinted in 1968 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2112, 2179-80); see also United States v. Fury, 554 F.2d 522, 526 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977), 436 U.S. 931 , 98 S.Ct. 2831 , 56 L.Ed.2d 776 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Torres
As we have stated: 146 "[T]he purpose of the statutory requirements is not to preclude resort to electronic surveillance until after all other possible means of investigation have been exhausted by investigative agents; rather, they only require that the agents inform the authorizing judicial officer of the nature and progress of the investigation and of the difficulties inherent in the use of normal law enforcement methods." 147 United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269, 1282 (2d Cir.1979) (quoting United States v. Hinton, 543 F.2d 1002, 1011 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 980 , 97 S.Ct. 493…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Torres
As we have stated: “[T]he purpose of the statutory requirements is not to preclude resort to electronic surveillance until after all other possible means of investigation have been exhausted by investigative agents; rather, they only require that the agents inform the authorizing judicial officer of the nature and progress of the investigation and of the difficulties inherent in the use of normal law enforcement methods.” United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269, 1282 (2d Cir.1979) (quoting United States v. Hinton, 543 F.2d 1002, 1011 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 980 , 97 S.Ct. 493 , 5…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Squitieri
See, e.g., United States v. Fury, 554 F.2d 522, 526 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 ; United States v. Poeta, 455 F.2d 117, 122 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 948 , 92 S.Ct. 2041 , 32 L.Ed.2d 337 (1972); United States v. Ramsey, 503 F.2d 524, 532 (7th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 932 , 95 S.Ct. 1136 , 43 L.Ed.2d 405 (1975); United States v. Suquet, 547 F.Supp. 1034, 1038 n. 9 (N.D.Ill.1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Coastal Distributing Company, Inc. v. Ngk Spark Plug Co., Ltd., and Ngk Spark Plugs [u.s.a.], Inc.
See Reynolds-Southwestern Corp. v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 438 S.W.2d 135, 140 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1969, writ ref’d n.r.e.); see also Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc. v. Ballard, 540 S.W.2d 380, 387 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Marine
See also United States v. Fury, 2d Cir., 554 F.2d 522, 528-29 (1977), cert. denied 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977), 436 U.S. 931 , 98 S.Ct. 2831 , 56 L.Ed.2d 776 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lula Belle Hull, of the Estate of R.D. Hull, Deceased, M.H. Parry, and H.A. Binford v. Brunswick Corporation
See also In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, 541 F.2d 1127, 1141-42 (5th Cir.1976) (provision that escalated royalties for one patent in package after expiration of another patent did not illegally extend life of first patent, on its face or as applied), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2976 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
West v. Whitney-Fidalgo Seafoods, Inc.
The focus is on anti-competitive intent and conduct, not the possibility of successful monopolization and therefore the relevant market is not an essential issue. “[A] prima facie case of attempt to monopolize is made out by evidence of a specific intent to monopolize ‘any part’ of commerce, plus anti-competitive conduct directed to the accomplishment of that unlawful purpose.” Greyhound Computer v. International Business Machines, 559 F.2d 488, 504 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1040 , 98 S.Ct. 782 , 54 L.Ed.2d 790 (1978); see also Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795,…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Local P-171, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America v. Thompson Farms Co.
See, e. g., In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, 541 F.2d 1127, 1143 (5 Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2976 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Local P-171, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America v. Thompson Farms Company, Fritz Plank v. Thompson Farms Company, a Corporation
See, e. g., In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, 541 F.2d 1127, 1143 (5 Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2976 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congoleum Industries, Inc.
(2×)
See also In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, 541 F.2d 1127, 1136 (5th Cir. 1976), Cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2976 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977) (allocation by patentee of royalty benefits to licensee not protected by patent policy); United States v. American Linen Supply Co., 141 F.Supp. 105, 113 (N.D.Ill.1956). 62 A second line of cases, more closely in point, illustrates the suspect status of patent license restrictions designed to reduce competition at the licensee level and operated for the benefit of competing licensees.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Fuchs Sugars & Syrups, Inc. v. Amstar Corporation
See also Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795, 804-05 (9th Cir. 1976), Cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2977 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Fuchs Sugars & Syrups, Inc. v. Amstar Corp.
See also Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795, 804-05 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2977 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Murphy Tugboat Co. v. Crowley
See, e. g., Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2977 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977) (dealers permitted to recover difference between the price they would have charged and the price they were compelled to charge by reason of a vertical price fixing agreement); Cackling Acres, Inc. v. Olson Farms, Inc., 541 F.2d 242 (10th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1122 , 97 S.Ct. 1158 , 51 L.Ed.2d 572 (1977) (producers permitted to recover difference between the price they were paid and the price they would have received but for the unlawful horiz…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. George Williams, Jr., United States of America v. Rosa L. Sumpter, (Two Cases). United States of America v. Lussia Rein, United States of America v. James A. Lincoln, United States of America v. Mary L. Lincoln, United States of America v. Michele E. Lincoln, United States of America v. Albert Lincoln, United States of America v. Norris Dubose, United States of America v. Thelma Dubose
See, E. g., United States v. Fury, 554 F.2d 522, 525-526 (2d Cir.), Cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977); United States v. Wright, 524 F.2d 1100, 1102 (2d Cir. 1975); United States v. Scasino, supra, 513 F.2d at 51 . 22 Act of Oct. 15, 1970, Pub.L.No.91-452, tit.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ottis v. Haas
See also, Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc. v. Ballard, 540 S.W.2d 380, 389 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977); Inman v. Padrezas, 540 S.W.2d 789, 797 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976, no writ); Whitson Company, Inc. v. Bluff Creek Oil Company, 278 S.W.2d 339, 347 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1955, aff’d, 156 Tex. 139 , 293 S.W.2d 488 (1956).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Universal Lite Distributors, Inc. v. Northwest Industries, Inc.
However, even assuming the truth of such an allegation, this Court “cannot conclude that such discussions constitute a combination within the meaning of Section 1 of the Sherman Act or that they represent more than internal dialogue leading to a decision on the part of a single business unit * * *.” Beckman v. Walter Kidde & Co., 316 F.Supp. 1321, 1326 (E.D.N.Y.1970) (emphasis supplied), aff’d per curiam, 451 F.2d 593 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 922 , 92 S.Ct. 2488 , 33 L.Ed.2d 333 (1972); Mutual Fund Investors, Inc. v. Putnam Management Co., 553 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1977); see …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Williams
See, e. g., United States v. Fury, 554 F.2d 522, 525-526 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977); United States v. Wright, 524 F.2d 1100, 1102 (2d Cir. 1975); United States v. Scasino, supra, 513 F.2d at 51 . .Act of Oct. 15, 1970, Pub.L.No.91-452, tit.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lex Tex Ltd., Inc.
v.
Universal Textured Yarns, Inc.
v.
Universal Textured Yarns, Inc.
76-1531.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 27, 1997.
433 U.S. 910
Published
Citer courts: W.D. New York (4)
LEX TEX LTD., INC.
v.
UNIVERSAL TEXTURED YARNS, INC., ET AL.
No. 76-1531.
Supreme Court of United States.
June 27, 1997.
1
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 514 F.2d 1127.