green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Larry Burdette Johnson
(2×)
Exceptions to this rule have been recognized where a federal law of general applicability, as opposed to federal enclave law, is involved, e. g., United States v. Burns, 529 F.2d 114, 117 (9th Cir. 1976); Stone v. United States, 506 F.2d 561, 563 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 978 , 95 S.Ct. 1405 , 43 L.Ed.2d 659 (1975); Walks On Top v. United States, 372 F.2d 422, 425 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 879 , 88 S.Ct. 109 , 19 L.Ed.2d 170 (1967); but see United States v. Smith, 562 F.2d 453, 456 (7th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1072 , 98 S.Ct. 1256 , 55 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978) …
discussed
Cited "see"
Louis Vuitton S.A. v. Spencer Handbags Corp.
See United States v. Richardson, 562 F.2d 476, 479 (7th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1072 , 98 S.Ct. 1257 , 55 L.Ed.2d 776 (1978); Mikus v. United States, 433 F.2d 719, 725-26 (2d Cir.1970) (authentication testimony on motion pictures of bank robbery held sufficient); cf. United States v. Brannon, 616 F.2d 413, 416-17 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 908 , 100 S.Ct. 2993 , 64 L.Ed.2d 858 (1980) (evidence that bank surveillance photos accurately depicted events was sufficient foundation for introduction of photos).
discussed
Cited "see"
Louis Vuitton S.A. v. Spencer Handbags Corp.
See United States v. Richardson, 562 F.2d 476, 479 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1072 , 98 S.Ct. 1257 , 55 L.Ed.2d 776 (1978); Mikus v. United States, 433 F.2d 719, 725-26 (2d Cir.1970) (authentication testimony on motion pictures of bank robbery held sufficient); cf. United States v. Brannon, 616 F.2d 413, 416-17 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 908 , 100 S.Ct. 2993 , 64 L.Ed.2d 858 (1980) (evidence that bank surveillance photos accurately depicted events was sufficient foundation for introduction of photos).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Raymond Wayne Blue A/K/A Budagau
(2×)
See United States v. Smith, 562 F.2d 453, 455-58 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1072 , 98 S.Ct. 1256 , 55 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978). 4 This result is consistent with the Indian Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Milan Bagaric, Mile Markich, Ante Ljubas, Vinko Logarusic, Ranko Primorac, and Drago Sudar
(2×)
“Courts construing the racketeering statutes have found that the references to state law serve a definitional purpose, to identify generally the kind of activity made illegal by the federal stat *63 ute.” United States v. Salinas, 564 F.2d 688, 690 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951 , 98 S.Ct. 1577 , 55 L.Ed.2d 800 (1978); see United States v. Frumento, 563 F.2d 1083 , 1087 n. 8A (3d Cir.1977) (“Section 1961 requires, in our view, only that the conduct on which the federal charge is based be typical of the serious crime dealt with by the state statute, not that the .particular de…
cited
Cited "see"
North Barrington Development, Inc. v. Fanslow
See, United States v. Frumento, 563 F.2d 1083, 1090 (3d Cir. 1977), cert, denied, 434 U.S. 1072 , 98 S.Ct. 1258 , 55 L.Ed.2d 776 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Bishop v. Mazurkiewicz
See United States v. Richardson, 562 F.2d 476, 480-81 (7th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1072 , 98 S.Ct. 1257 , 55 L.Ed.2d 776 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert S. Bacheler and Rocco Cipparone
(2×)
See United States v. Frumento, 563 F.2d 1083 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1072 , 98 S.Ct. 1256 , 1258, 55 L.Ed.2d 775 , 776 (1978) (Pennsylvania Bureau of Cigarette and Beverage Taxes, a division of the Department of Revenue, held to be an enterprise); United States v. Herman, 589 F.2d 1191 (3d Cir.), cert. denied 441 U.S. 913 , 99 S.Ct. 2014 , 60 L.Ed.2d 386 (1979) (applying RICO to Pittsburgh magistrates without discussing the enterprise issue); United States v. Vignola, 464 F.Supp. 1091 (E.D.Pa.1979), aff’d mem., 605 F.2d 1199 (3d Cir. 1979) (Philadelphia Traffic Court held to b…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gonzalez
Id.; see also United States v. Frumento, 563 F.2d 1083, 1088 (3d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 *792 U.S. 1072, 98 S.Ct. 1256 , 55 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rose, Joseph, in No. 88-1634 v. Bartle, Paul, Asher, Robert, Smyth, Joseph A. Jr., Goodman, Bert, Vance, Oscar, Montgomery County, and Republican Party of Montgomery County. (d.c.civ. No. 86-6255). Reed, Trudy W., in No. 88-1646 v. Bartle, Paul B., Banning, Rita C., Demaioribus, James R., Collectively as the Salary Board of Montgomery County, Bartle, Paul, Individually, Asher, Robert, Smyth, Joseph A., Jr., Goodman, Bert, Vance, Oscar, Montgomery County, Republican Party of Montgomery County, Commissioners of the County of Montgomery (d.c.civ. No. 87-6405). Hill, Frederick B. v. Bartle, Paul, Asher, Robert, Smyth, Joseph A., Jr., Goodman, Bert, Vance, Oscar, Montgomery County, and Republican Party of Montgomery County (d.c. Civil 86-6963). Hill, Frederick B. v. Bartle, Paul, Asher, Robert, Smyth, Joseph A., Jr., Goodman, Bert, and Republican Party of Montgomery County, Montgomery County (d.c. Civil 87-3927). Appeal of Frederick Hill, Kolimaga, Walter, in No. 88-1653 v. Bartle, Paul, Asher, Robert, Montgomery County, and Republican Party of Montgomery County (d.c. Civil No. 87-0804)
(2×)
The Court characterized this activity as that by which "funds are obtained from the victim with his consent produced by the use of force, fear, or threats." Id.; see also United States v. Frumento, 563 F.2d 1083, 1087-88 (3d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1072 , 98 S.Ct. 1256 , 1258, 55 L.Ed.2d 775 , 776 (1978); United States v. Garner, 837 F.2d 1404, 1419 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 2022 , 100 L.Ed.2d 608 , --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 2914 , 101 L.Ed.2d 945 , --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 244 , 102 L.Ed.2d 232 (1988). 143 The question, then, which the district court fail…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rose v. Bartle
(2×)
The Court characterized this activity as that by which “funds are obtained from the victim with his consent produced by the use of force, fear, or threats.” Id.; see also United States v. Frumento, 563 F.2d 1083, 1087-88 (3d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1072 , 98 S.Ct. 1256 , 1258, 55 L.Ed.2d 775 , 776 (1978); United States v. Garner, 837 F.2d 1404, 1419 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 2022 , 100 L.Ed.2d 608 , — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 2914 , 101 L.Ed.2d 945 , — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 244 , 102 L.Ed.2d 232 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. James McCormack
(2×)
See also United States v. Richardson, 562 F.2d 476, 481 (7th Cir.), cert denied, 434 U.S. 1072 , 98 S.Ct. 746 , 54 L.Ed.2d 768 (1977); United States v. Johnston, 543 F.2d 55, 59 (8th Cir.1976); Baker v. United States, 412 F.2d 1069, 1071-72 (5th Cir.1969), cert, denied, 396 U.S. 1018 , 90 S.Ct. 583 , 24 L.Ed.2d 509 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States of America Ex Rel. Joseph Kosik, Jr. v. Richard Napoli
Compare, e.g., United States ex ret Henne v. Fike, 563 F.2d 809, 813 (7th Cir.1977) (Rule 52(a) applies in review of district court’s factual determinations in a state habeas case), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1072 , 98 S.Ct. 1257 , 55 L.Ed.2d 776 (1978) with Burns, 798 F.2d at 940-41 (section 2254(d) presumption favoring accuracy of state courts’ findings applies).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Bryant
See also United States v. Fike, 563 F.2d 809, 814 (7th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1072 (1978); United States v. Delay, 500 F.2d 1360, 1365 (8th Cir. 1974). 8 The fact that the defendant was given a portion of the Miranda warnings at the outset of the conversation did not make the situation custodial. *738 Warnings may be given “out of abundant caution.” Commonwealth v. Bookman, 386 Mass. 657, 660-661 (1982).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Cook
(4×)
See also United States v. Smith, 562 F.2d 453 (7th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1072 , 98 S.Ct. 1256 , 55 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978); United States v. Cunningham, 509 F.2d 961 (D.C.Cir.1975); State v. Barrett, 96 Wis.2d 174 , 291 N.W.2d 498 (1980).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Barrett
See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 562 F.2d 454 (7th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1072 (1978); United States v. Cunningham, 509 F.2d 961, 963 (D.C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Thevis
(2×)
Compare, United States v. Frumento, 563 F.2d 1083 (3rd Cir. 1977), cert. denied sub nomine Millhouse v. United States, 434 U.S. 1072 , 98 S.Ct. 1256 , 55 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978); United States v. Brown, supra with United States v. Mandel, supra. In answering this new question, this Court is convinced that the RICO enterprise is broad enough to embrace an enterprise defined as a “group of individuals associated in fact with various corporations.” In reaching this conclusion, the Court has relied, as has the defendant, on the language *138 of the statute itself, the Congressional intent, and the …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Moeller
(2×)
See also Millhouse v. United States, 563 F.2d 1083 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1072 , 98 S. Ct. 1256 , 55 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Preston
v.
Georgia
v.
Georgia
No. 77-5613.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 21, 1978.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.