green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
11.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1985 ·
…it is not for witnesses to instruct the jury as to applicable principles of law, but for the judge.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
David Leroy Washington v. Charles E. Strickland, Superintendent, Florida State Prison, and Jim Smith, Attorney General of the State of Florida
But see United States v. Patterson, 652 F.2d 1046, 1048 (D.C.Cir.1981) ("No counsel, however skillful, could have 'affected the outcome' of this case where appellant's identity was fixed by three eyewitnesses to the commission of the offense and no greater number of unidentified alibi witnesses, more than the three presented, would have prevented the inescapable jury finding of guilt."). 15 The Second Circuit requires that "claims of ineffective assistance must be premised on actual, not possible, prejudice to the client." United States v. Aulet, 618 F.2d 182, 188 (2d Cir. 1980) (following LiP…
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Gruss
this court requires the exclusion of testimony which states a legal conclusion
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Strickland v. Royal Lubricant Co., Inc.
it is not for the witnesses to instruct the jury as to the applicable principles of law, but for the judge.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
37 Fair empl.prac.cas. 535, 36 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,085, 17 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 978 Belen Torres, (83-1194), (83-1239, 83-1453) v. County of Oakland and Oakland County Community Mental Health Services Board, Jointly and Severally, (83-1194), (83-1239, 83-1453)
it is not for witnesses to instruct the jury as to applicable principles of law, but for the judge.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Torres v. County of Oakland
it is not for witnesses to instruct the jury as to applicable principles of law, but for the judge.
cited
Cited "see"
Starling v. Fuller
See Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners' Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 508-09 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eduardo Burkhart v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(2×)
See Marx & Co. v. Diners' Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 509-10 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977). 29 Even aside from Spurlock's erroneous formulation of the pertinent law, we are also troubled by Spurlock's testimony that Officer Gray's communications with Burkhart were not "as effective" as the means of communication with others.
discussed
Cited "see"
Rafael Aguilar v. International Longshoremen's Union Local 10 International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union Pacific Maritime Association
See Marx v. Diners Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505 , 509 (2d Cir.1977) (expert testimony consisting of legal conclusions regarding existence of contract or meaning of its terms not admissible), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Solomon v. Commissioner of Correctional Services
“In order to show ineffective assistance for the failure to make a suppression motion, the underlying motion must be shown to be meritorious, and there must be a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different if the evidence had been suppressed.” United States v. Matos, 905 F.2d 30, 32 (2d Cir.1990) (citing Kimmelman, 477 U.S. at 375-76, 106 S.Ct. at 2582-83 ); see LiPuma v. Commissioner, Dept. of Com, 560 F.2d 84, 93 (2d Cir.) (it is sufficient that counsel exercised “professional discretion”), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 189 , 54 L.Ed.2d 135 (1977); Curzi…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Gibson
See Marx & Co. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 508-10 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Curzi v. United States
See LiPuma v. Commissioner, Dep’t of Corrections, 560 F.2d 84, 93 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 189 , 54 L.Ed.2d 135 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ronald O. Pelletier v. Gary D. Zweifel, Ronald O. Pelletier v. Gary D. Zweifel
Instead, the court uses a reasonable person test to determine whether, if the scheme had been executed, the intended victim would have acted on the misrepresentations: were the misrepresentations “reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence *1499 and comprehension.” United States v. Bruce, 488 F.2d 1224, 1229 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 825 , 95 S.Ct. 41 , 42 L.Ed.2d 48 (1974); see United States v. Netterville, 553 F.2d 903, 909 (5th Cir.1977), ce rt. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 1009, 98 S.Ct. 189 , 719, 54 L.Ed.2d 135 (1978). 73 This does not mean, however, that we…
discussed
Cited "see"
Rachelle Hines, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Clark Hines, Deceased v. British Steel Corporation
See Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237, 1248-53 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977) (pre-Scm- dia case discussing Restatement (Second) Torts §§ 318, 343, 414, and finding that only Section 414 comports with congress’s intent with regard to the liability of a vessel under the LHWCA).
cited
Cited "see"
Frank Andrews v. Metro North Commuter Railroad Co., Penn Central Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, National Railroad Passenger Corp.
See Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505 , 510 & n. 15 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Estate of Crossmore v. Commissioner
See Marx & Co. v. Diners' Club, Inc., 550 F. 2d 505 (2d Cir. 1977) , cert. denied 434 U.S. 861 (1977) .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. James C. Curtis
See Marx & Co. v. Diners’ Club, 550 F.2d 505 , 509-10 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977); Note, supra, at 1362.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Fernando Fuentes-Coba
See Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 510 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Inez Eaton Guerrero, Patrick John O'shea, Stephen Michael Kessler, Cynthia Walker and Donald Gene Booth
See United States v. Netterville, 553 F.2d 903, 916 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 189 , 54 L.Ed.2d 135 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Sharkey v. Airco, Inc.
See Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237, 1251 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Charles Evans v. Transportacion Maritime Mexicana Ss \Campeche\""
(2×)
See Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237, 1249-50 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977) (§§ 416-429 inapplicable to LHWCA because those sections impose vicarious liability, contrary to the intent of Congress); Riddle v. Exxon Transp.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sarauw v. Oceanic Navigation Corporation Vlcc
See Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977); Rich v. United States Lines, Inc., 596 F.2d 541 (3d Cir.1979); and Griffith v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 610 F.2d 116 (3d Cir.1979). 10 In Hurst, we concluded that because the 1972 Amendments abolished unseaworthiness as a basis of liability, all species of liability without fault were abolished as well, including the doctrine of nondelegable duties. 554 F.2d at 1246-47 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Sarauw v. Oceanic Navigation Corp.
See Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977); Rich v. United States Lines, Inc., 596 F.2d 541 (3d Cir.1979); and Griffith v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 610 F.2d 116 (3d Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
John Indiviglio v. United States
(2×)
See LiPuma v. Comm'r, Dep't of Corrections, 560 F.2d 84, 91 (2d Cir.), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 189 , 54 L.Ed.2d 135 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Moses Pino
The Committee states that “[t]hese provisions afford ampie assurances against the admission of opinions which would merely tell the jury what result to reach, somewhat in the manner of the oath-helpers of an earlier day.” (Emphasis added); see Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505 , 511 n. 17 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 . 12 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. I. Vasilios, A/K/A Bill Vasilios, and Howard W. Alexander, Defendants- United States of America v. James W. Brewer
See United States v. Netterville, 553 F.2d 903 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 189 , 54 L.Ed.2d 135 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Reiff v. Department of Probation
See LiPuma v. Com’r, Dept. of Corrections, St. of N. Y., 560 F.2d 84, 93, n.6 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 189 , 54 L.Ed.2d 135 (1977); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Rondeau
See Commonwealth v. Brown, ante 165, 171 (1979), and cases cited. 3 The Second and Tenth Circuit Courts continue to insist that “to be of constitutional dimensions the representation [must] be so woefully inadequate as to shock the conscience of the Court and make the proceedings a farce and a mockery of justice.” LiPuma v. Commissioner, Dep’t of Corrections, 560 F.2d 84, 90 (2d Cir.) (quotations omitted), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Simko v. C & C Marine Maintenance Co.
See Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237 , 1243—14 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977); Griffith v. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 521 F.2d 31, 40 (3d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1054 , 96 S.Ct. 785 , 46 L.Ed.2d 643 (1976). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Simko v. Marine Maintenance Co.
See Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237 , 1243-44 (3d Cir.), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977); Griffith v. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 521 F.2d 31, 40 (3d Cir. 1975), Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1054 , 96 S.Ct. 785 , 46 L.Ed.2d 643 (1976) 2 The court instructed the jury that if they found Simko to be a member of the crew of only ACBL # 2699, they could still find against C & C on the Jones Act claim if they found that C & C was owner pro hac vice of that barge.
cited
Cited "see"
Brawer v. United States
Accord, e. g., LiPuma v. Commissioner, Dept. of Corrections, 560 F.2d 84, 90-91 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 189 , 54 L.Ed.2d 135 (1977); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
Dougherty v. Haaland
See Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237 , 1249-50 n. 35 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977); Brown v. Ivarans Rederi A/S, 545 F.2d 854 , 863-64 n. 10 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969 , 97 S.Ct. 1652 , 52 L.Ed.2d 361 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Howard Wendy
Given the “farce and mockery” standard of competence which, although abandoned in several other circuits, still prevails in this one, United States v. Wight, 176 F.2d 376, 379 (2d Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 950 (1950); see LiPuma v. Commissioner, 560 F.2d 84, 90-91 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 189 , 54 L.Ed.2d 135 (1977), it is questionable whether even Wendy’s acknowledged lack of trial experience and competence would *1031 have attained the depths necessary to permit reversal of the conviction.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. United States
Mr. Smith does not provide any evidence to refute the assertion that his counsel made a strategic decision in declining to file a motion to suppress and “[a]ctions and/or omissions taken by counsel for strategic purposes generally do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.” Gibbons v. Savage, 555 F.3d 112, 122 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690–91); see also DiTommaso, 817 F.2d at 215 (“It is sufficient that counsel exercised ‘professional discretion in deciding whether there are sufficient grounds’ to file a motion.” (quoting LiPuma v. Comm’r, Dep’t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lamar Advertising Company v. Zurich American Insurance Company
See also Marx & Co. v. Diner's Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505 , 509–10 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977) (“It is not for witnesses to instruct the jury as to applicable principles of law, but for the judge.”); 3 J.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hoekman v. Education Minnesota
Additionally, “expert testimony on legal matters is not admissible” because “[m]atters of law are for the trial judge . . . .” S. Pine Helicopters, Inc. v. Phoenix Aviation Managers, Inc., 320 F.3d 838 , 841 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Klaphake, 64 F.3d 435 , 438–39 (8th Cir. 1995)); see also Farmland Indus. v. Frazier-Parrott Commodities, Inc., 871 F.2d 1402 , 1409 (8th Cir. 1989) (noting that “ [t]he special legal knowledge of the judge [rendered] the witness’[s] testimony’ ” on legal questions “ ‘superfluous’ ” (quoting Marx & Co. v. Diner’s Club, In…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Barrett v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Corp., 516 F.3d at 1379 n.6 (because the proper interpretation of agency regulations is an issue of law, expert testimony relating to this question, such as the affidavit of a former government official, should not be received, much less considered); see also Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 509-10 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 (1977); Aguilar v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Union, 966 F.2d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Buchanan
To the, extent that it recounts issues of fact — whether Mr. Buchanan in fact misapplied Bank funds — it invades the jury’s function: “Mere qualification as an expert is not license to invade the jury’s function by telling the jury what result to reach, ... nor is it appropriate for an expert to supplant the judge’s function to instruct the jury on the law.” Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 545 F.Supp. 1314, 1372 (S.D.N.Y.1982); see also Marx & Co. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 509-510 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (19…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. John Sinclair
Compare Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners' Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977) with United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1294-95 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 813 , 112 S.Ct. 63 , 116 L.Ed.2d 39 (1991). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Newman
See, e.g., *7 Hygh v. Jacobs, 961 F.2d 369 , 363 (2d Cir.1992); Torres v. County of Oakland, 758 F.2d 147, 150 (6th Cir.1985); see also Marx & Co. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 512 (2d Cir.) (“It is hot for witnesses to instruct the jury as to applicable principles of law, but for the judge.”), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Zych v. Unidentified, Wrecked, and Abandoned Vessel, Believed to Be the SB \Seabird\""
Franz Lange G.m.B.H. & Co., 387 F.Supp. 440, 443 (E.D.Pa.1974) (three-judge court)); see also Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237, 1244-45 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Haberern v. Kaupp Vascular Surgeons Ltd.
See, e.g., First National State Bank v. Reliance Electric Co., 668 F.2d 725, 731 (3d Cir.1981) and Bauman v. Centex Corp., 611 F.2d 1115, 1121 (5th Cir.1980), cited by Defendants, and Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 509 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Angelo Ruggiero, Gene Gotti and John Carneglia
Scop, 846 F.2d at 141-42 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1294-95 (2d Cir.1991) (“[Scop and Marx & Co. v. Diner’s Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977)] establish that although an expert may opine on an issue of fact within the jury’s province, he may not give testimony stating ultimate legal conclusions based on those facts.”); Diaz, 878 F.2d at 617 -18 (quoting Scop, 846 F.2d at 141-42 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Channel Master Satellite, Systems, Inc. v. JFD Electronics Corp.
See, e.g., Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 509-10 (2d Cir.1977) (The Second Circuit found that the district court erred in allowing a securities expert to testify as to the legal effect of a securities contract, commenting that “It is not for witnesses to instruct the jury as to applicable principles of law, but for the judge.”), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Zych v. Unidentified, Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, Believed to Be the SB \Lady Elgin\""
See also Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237, 1244 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mecca v. Gibraltar Corp. of America
See, e.g., Marx & Co. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
23 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 893, 26 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 860 United States of America v. Carol G. Unruh, William L. Fowler, Robert Hopper, Stephen C. Forde, Defendants
See Cooley v. United States, 501 F.2d 1249, 1253-54 (9th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1123 , 95 S.Ct. 809 , 42 L.Ed.2d 824 (1975); see also Marx & Co. v. Diners' Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 509-10 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Unruh
See Cooley v. United States, 501 F.2d 1249, 1253-54 (9th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1123 , 95 S.Ct. 809 , 42 L.Ed.2d 824 (1975); see also Marx & Co. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 509-10 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Margaret Scott v. Sears, Roebuck & Company
See, e.g., Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 510 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977); United States v. Collins, 395 F.Supp. 629, 637 (M.D.Pa.), aff'd mem., 523 F.2d 1051 (3d Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States Ex Rel. LaSalle v. Smith
Compare LiPuma v. Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, 560 F.2d 84 , 93 n. 6 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 189 , 54 L.Ed.2d 135 (1977), with Morrison v. Kimmelman, 752 F.2d 918 (3d Cir.1985), certiorari granted, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 59 , 88 L.Ed.2d 47 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
David Goins v. Michael Lane, Director, Department of Corrections, State of Illinois
Compare LiPuma v. Commissioner, 560 F.2d 84 , 93 n.6 (2d Cir.) (Stone bars consideration of habeas petitioner’s contention that counsel was ineffective due to failure to file motion to suppress), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 189 , 54 L.Ed.2d 135 (1977), with Sallie v. North Carolina, 587 F.2d 636, 640-41 (4th Cir. 1978) (Stone does not bar relief in such circumstances), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 911 , 99 S.Ct. 2009 , 60 L.Ed.2d 383 (1979); see also Christian v. McKaskle, 731 F.2d 1196, 1199 (5th Cir. 1984) (discussion of LiPuma and Sallie).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ernest, next friend of Unborn Child Roe
v.
Carter, President of the United States
v.
Carter, President of the United States
No. 77-184.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 1977.
434 U.S. 861
Published
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.