green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
10.0 score
G Cite
cited 9× by 3 distinct cases ·
" Transco I "
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
North Carolina Utilities Commission v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
transco i
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
North Carolina Utilities Commission v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
transco i
discussed
Cited "see"
Jerome Glen Brown v. United States
See United States v. Davis, 573 F.2d 1177, 1179 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2829 , 56 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978); United States v. Davis, 544 F.2d 1056, 1058 (10th Cir.1976); United States v. Von Roeder, 435 F.2d 1004, 1010 (10th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 934 , 91 S.Ct. 2264 , 29 L.Ed.2d 713 (1971); Purdom v. United States, 249 F.2d 822, 826-27 (10th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 913 , 78 S.Ct. 341 , 2 L.Ed.2d 273 (1958) (under Prince, merger pertains to sentences, not offenses).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca4 1992
See United States v. Clerkley, 556 F.2d 709, 715 (4th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 930 (1978). 17 On March 20, 1990, and April 26, 1990, a judge authorized electronic surveillance of Ferreira through clone beepers.
cited
Cited "see"
CEMEX, S.A. v. United States
See United States v. Nunez, 573 F.2d 769, 771 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2828 , 56 L.Ed.2d 774 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Francesco Delorenzo, A/K/A Frank, United States of America v. Felice Sestito, A/K/A Phillip
See United States v. Clerkley, 556 F.2d 709, 715 (4th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 930 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Luis Montenegro-Rojo
See United States v. Nunez, 573 F.2d 769, 770-72 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2828 , 56 L.Ed.2d 774 (1978), cited in United States v. McCrae, 714 F.2d 83 , 85 n. 1 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1001 , 104 S.Ct. 506 , 78 L.Ed.2d 696 (1983); see also United States v. Wickenhauser, 710 F.2d 486, 487 (8th Cir.1983).
examined
Cited "see"
Vandegrift v. State
(3×)
See United States v. Clerkley, 556 F.2d 709, 714 (4th Cir.1977), cert. denied, Genco v. United States, 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2830 , 56 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978), London v. United States, 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2830 , 56 L.Ed.2d 775 . *629 (1978), and Shade v. United States, 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2830 , 56 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978) (in investigation of gambling operation, fact that the government has ample evidence to arrest known participants does not preclude it from seeking wiretap order to uncover names of bookmakers and other co-conspirators).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Asher, Robert B.
(2×)
In Provenzano , for example, we noted that "[sjome evidence of [the witness’s] deal with the federal government was introduced in cross-examination, by Provenzano's lawyer, who raised the issue of [the witness’s] bias or motive_’’ 620 F.2d at 1001 n. 20 (emphasis added); accord United States v. Snead, 447 F.Supp. 1321, 1326 (E.D.Pa.) (a "prior statement ... offered to rebut the charge of recent fabrication ... [is] exactly the type of evidence contemplated by Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B)”) (emphasis added), aff’d without published opinion, 577 F.2d 730 (3d Cir.) (table), c…
discussed
Cited "see"
No. 84-1909
See Horne, 265 F.Supp. at 383-84, 387 (quoted in text, supra at 1330-1331). 9 See United States v. Nunez, 573 F.2d 769, 771 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2828 , 56 L.Ed.2d 774 (1978) (citing "settled principle of statutory construction" that "[w]hen the same word or phrase is used in the same section of an act more than once, and the meaning is clear as used in one place, it will be construed to have the same meaning in the next place").
discussed
Cited "see"
Kifer v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
See United States v. Nunez, 573 F.2d 769, 771 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2828 , 56 L.Ed.2d 774 (1978) (citing "settled principle of statutory construction” that "[w]hen the same word or phrase is used in the same section of an act more than once, and the meaning is clear as used in one place, it will be construed to have the same meaning in the next place”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Evans
(2×)
See United States v. Snead, 447 F.Supp. 1321 (E.D.Pa.), affirmed 577 F.2d 730 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2829 , 56 L.Ed.2d 775 and 439 U.S. 851 , 99 S.Ct. 156 , 58 L.Ed.2d 154 (1978) (testimony clearly relevant and probative with respect to one defendant was properly admitted over co-defendant’s claim of prejudice).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Nolen
(2×)
See United States v. Snead, 447 F.Supp. 1321 (E.D.Pa.), affirmed 577 F.2d 730 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2829 , 56 L.Ed.2d 775 and 439 U.S. 851 , 99 S.Ct. 156 , 58 L.Ed.2d 154 (1978) (testimony clearly relevant and probative with respect to one defendant was properly admitted over co-defendant's claim of prejudice).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Franjo Ivic, Nedjelko Sovulj, Ivan Cale and Stipe Ivkosic, Defendants
See United States v. Nunez, 573 F.2d 769, 771 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2828 , 56 L.Ed.2d 774 (1978), and eases cited there.
discussed
Cited "see"
Edward Cabbell v. United States
See United States v. Davis, 544 F.2d 1056, 1058 (10th Cir. 1976), appeal after remand, 573 F.2d 1177 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2829 , 56 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978); United States v. Welty, 426 F.2d 615, 618 (3d Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tri-State Terminals, Inc. v. Jesse
Accord, United States v. Nunez, 573 F.2d 769, 771 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2828 , 56 L.Ed.2d 774 (1978); United States v. Gertz, 249 F.2d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 1957); Schooler v. United States, 231 F.2d 560, 563 (8th Cir. 1956).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca7 1979
Accord, United States v. Nunez, 573 F.2d 769, 771 (2d Cir.), Cert. denied, 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2828 , 56 L.Ed.2d 774 (1978); United States v. Gertz, 249 F.2d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 1957); Schooler v. United States, 231 F.2d 560, 563 (8th Cir. 1956). 21 Several decisions construing "earning capacity," as used in § 10(c), have held it means the ability, willingness and opportunity to work.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Resolution Trust Corp. v. J.F. Associates
Dev., Inc. v. FDIC, 771 F.Supp. 1163, 1168-69 (D.Utah 1991) (“The term ‘continue’ implies that a party is proceeding forward in an ongoing case without an interruption in the court’s jurisdiction.”); see Marquis v. FDIC, 965 F.2d at 1152-53 (interpreting near identical language in 12 U.S.C. § 1821 (d)(5)(F)(ii)); See also, United States v. Nunez, 573 F.2d 769, 771 (2d Cir.) (identical terms within act construed to have same meaning when each term followed by identical language), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2828 , 56 L.Ed.2d 774 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. State of Connecticut and William A. O'neill, Governor of the State of Connecticut
Senate Report at 6, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1988, 3076; see also United States v. Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, 897 F.2d 358, 365 (8th Cir.1990) (as to section 2710(b)(1)(A) and class II gaming, “the legislative history reveals that Congress intended to permit a particular gaming activity, even if conducted in a manner inconsistent with state law, if the state law merely regulated, as opposed to completely barred, that particular gaming activity.”). *1030 We deem this legislative history instructive with respect to the meaning of the identical language in section 2710(d)(1)(B), regard…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Paredes-Moya
See, e.g., United States v. Clerkley, 556 F.2d 709, 718-19 (4th Cir.1977) (relying on legislative history to conclude that — unlike investigatory exhaustion, judicial authorization, and minimization require *1408 ments — recording requirement served no Fourth Amendment purpose), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2830 , 56 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978); United States v. Daly, 535 F.2d 434, 442 (8th Cir.1976) (purpose of recording requirement is to ensure admissibility); United States v. Gerena, 695 F.Supp. 1379, 1393-94 (D.Conn.1988) (purpose of recording is evidentiary).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Buzzi v. United States
See, e.g., United States v. Nunez, 573 F.2d 769 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2828 , 56 L.Ed.2d 774 (1978). . 28 U.S.C. § 2255 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Morris v. Cohen
What is envisioned is “protection of dependent children through the provision of assistance payments [and child support collection services] to meet their current needs.” (Burnham v. Woods (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 667, 673 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 4 ]; see also Garcia v. Swoap (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 903 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 137 ], cert. den. 436 U.S. 930 [ 56 L.Ed.2d 775 , 98 S.Ct. 2829 ].) In electing to participate in the AFDC program, California did not, pursuant to title IV-D, assume the obligation of collecting child support arrearages due parents and their adult children, who are not “dependent childr…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Catania
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Clerkley, 556 F. 2d 709, 716 (4th Cir.1977), cert. den., 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2830 , 56 L.Ed. 2d 775 (1978); United States v. Hinton, 543 F. 2d 1002, 1011-12 (2d Cir.), cert. den., 429 U.S. 980 , 97 S.Ct. 493 , 50 L.Ed. 2d 589 (1976); United States v. Kirk, 534 F. 2d 1262, 1275 (8th Cir.1976), cert. den., 430 U.S. 906 , 97 S.Ct. 1174 , 51 L.Ed. 2d 581 (1977); United States v. Turner, 528 F. 2d 143, 156-58 (9th Cir.), cert. den., 429 U.S. 837 , 97 S.Ct. 105 , 50 L.Ed. 2d 103 (1975); United States v. Armocida, 515 F. 2d 29, 44 (3d Cir.), cert. den., 423 U.S. 858 , …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Webster
See also United States v. Clerkley, 556 F.2d 709, 714 (4th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 930 , 98 S.Ct. 2830 , 56 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978); United States v. Brick, 502 F.2d 219, 224 (8th Cir. 1974); United States v. Volpe, 430 F.Supp. 931 (D.Conn.1977), aff’d, 578 F.2d 1372 (2d Cir. 1978).
London
v.
United States Genco v. United States and Shade v. United States
v.
United States Genco v. United States and Shade v. United States
No. 76-1826; No. 76-1852; No. 76-6978.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 30, 1978.
436 U.S. 930
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.