Reproductive Servs., Inc. v. Walker, Judge, 439 U.S. 1133 (1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Reproductive Servs., Inc. v. Walker, Judge, 439 U.S. 1133 (1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
107 citation events across 24 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Doughty v. United States (dc, 1990-03-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Doughty v. United States
D.C. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gale v. United States, 391 A.2d 230 , 234 n. 4 (D.C.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1057 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979); McKoy v. United States, 518 A.2d 1013, 1017 (D.C.1986), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1081 , 99 L.Ed.2d 240 (1988); In re Sealed Case, 219 U.S.App.D.C. 195, 210-11 , 676 F.2d 793, 808-09 (1982).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Hoffman (2×)
S.D. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Wentland, 582 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1056 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979); People v. Farmer, 339 N.W.2d 218 (Mich.1983); State ex rel.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Leonor Guzman, A/K/A Felicitas Flores
5th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Wentland, 582 F.2d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1056 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979).
discussed Cited "see" Maurice Purnell v. Missouri Department of Corrections (2×)
8th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Collins v. Auger, 577 F.2d 1107, 1108 (8th Cir.1978) (citing Jenkins v. Fitzberger, 440 F.2d 1188, 1189 (4th Cir.1971)), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1057 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979); Blackwell v. Wolff, 454 F.2d 48, 50 (8th Cir.1972) (citing Jenkins); see also Batten v. Scurr, 649 F.2d 564, 568 (8th Cir.1981) (strong indication that state believes its interests have been vindicated where state conceded issue in answer to habeas petition and did not raise issue on appeal).
discussed Cited "see" Clifford W. Carrier v. Terrell D. Hutto, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections (2×)
4th Cir. · 1983 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Jiminez v. Estelle, 557 F.2d 506, 510-11 (5th Cir.1977). 6 See also Collins v. Auger, 577 F.2d 1107 , 1110 n. 2 (8th Cir.1978) (dictum), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1057 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979) (lack of knowledge of facts or law by counsel would be sufficient cause for failure to make objection within the "cause and prejudice" test of Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536 , 96 S.Ct. 1708 , 48 L.Ed.2d 149 (1976), the precursor of Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 , 97 S.Ct. 2497 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977); Rachel v. Bordenkircher, 590 F.2d 200, 204 (6th Cir.1978) (cause found where a…
cited Cited "see" United States v. George Wuagneux
11th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Greene, 578 F.2d 648, 657 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1056 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979).
discussed Cited "see" Kyle v. State
Iowa · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Collins v. Auger, 428 F.Supp. 1079, 1082 (S.D.Iowa 1977), aff’d following remand, 577 F.2d 1107 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1057 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979). 9 Second, even if we considered the evidence to be hearsay, and not admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule, there was enough evidence outside the Grimmer statement to allow trial court to find that Kyle had premeditated the murder of Diane Gable.
cited Cited "see" Rodney T. Boyd v. Ira Mintz, Superintendent of the New Jersey Adult Diagnostic & Treatment Center, and the State of New Jersey
3rd Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Collins v. Auger, 577 F.2d 1107, 1110-1111 (8th Cir. 1978), [cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1057 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979)].
discussed Cited "see" Melvin Gale v. U. S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gale v. United States, 391 A.2d 230, 232 (D.C.Ct.App.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1057 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Roberto G. Elorduy
5th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally, United States v. Wentland, 582 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1056 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Henry J. Nowak, Jr. (86-3184), Pete Alex (86-3255)
6th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Wentland, 582 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 (1979).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Robert Daniel Bigler (2×)
5th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see also United States v. Wentland, 582 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1056 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1978); United States v. Perez-Reveles, 715 F.2d 1348 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v. Brooks, 697 F.2d 517 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1071 , 1073, 103 S.Ct. 1526 , 1531, 75 L.Ed.2d 949 , 952 (1982). . 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (a)(2). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. George R. Studnicka
11th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
Under section 3161(h)(8)(A), any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court is excludable where “the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and *658 the defendant in a speedy trial.” 17 For the delay to be excluded, the court must specify in the record the reason for granting the continuance. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(8)(A) (1982); see also United States v. Wentland, 582 F.2d 1022, 1024 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1056 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979). 18 On August 1, 1983, John Evans, appellant’s preferre…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Prado McGee Jr. v. W.J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent
5th Cir. · 1984 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Collins v. Auger, 577 F.2d 1107 , 1109 n. 1 (8th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1057 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979) (exhaustion waiva-ble when interests of justice and expedition so require) with Davis v. Campbell, 608 F.2d 317 , 320 n. 10 (8th Cir.1979) (observing that prior pronouncements recognizing waiver are dicta and pretermitting question).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Billy Honeycutt v. Mr. William B. Mahoney, Superintendent Attorney General of the State of North Carolina (2×)
4th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Collins v. Auger, 577 F.2d 1107 , 1110 n. 2 (8th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1057 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sammie Felder, Jr. v. W.J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections (2×)
5th Cir. · 1982 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Collins v. Auger, 577 F.2d 1107, 1109 n. 1 (8th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1057 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979) (federal courts may in the interests of justice and expedition accept waiver of exhaustion by the state) with Davis v. Campbell, 608 F.2d 317 , 320 n. 10 (8th Cir.1979) (noting that the prior recognition of waiver was dicta, and specifically reserving the issue).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Ziegler v. Super. Ct. in and for Cty. of Pima
Ariz. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Reproductive Services, Inc. v. Walker, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1057 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Williams v. United States (2×)
SCOTUS · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., United States v. Greene, 578 F. 2d 648, 657 (CA5 1978), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 1133 (1979).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ruth v. United States (2×)
D.C. · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Gale v. United States, D.C.App., 391 A.2d 230, 236 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1057 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979). .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Bundy v. United States
D.C. · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Gale v. United States, D.C.App., 391 A.2d 230 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1057 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hector Alburquerque v. Raymond Bara, Superintendent of Queensboro Correctional Facility, and Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York (2×)
2d Cir. · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Collins v. Auger, 577 F.2d 1107 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1133 , 99 S.Ct. 1057 , 59 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979); Thergood v. Tedford, 473 F.Supp. 339 (D.Conn.1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Reproductive Services, Inc.
v.
Dee Brown Walker, District Judge, Etc
78- 719.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jul 11, 1978.
439 U.S. 1133
Stevens.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied for want of jurisdiction.

Mr. Justice Stevens.

On June 23, 1978, the Texas Supreme Court denied petitioner’s application for a writ of mandamus and dissolved its earlier order requiring discovery concerning certain patients of petitioner’s abortion clinic. On July 10, 1978, Mr. Justice Brennan stayed the order of the Texas Supreme Court. On July 17, 1978, Mr. Justice Brennan vacated that stay and filed an opinion, post, p. 1307, stating in part:

“The question sought to be raised by applicant— whether the names of abortion patients can be obtained by discovery for use in a civil suit against a person or[*1134] clinic performing abortions where, as here, the parties have not agreed to a protective order to ensure the privacy of those patients — is a serious one. If this question were in fact presented by this case, I am of the view that four Members of this Court would vote to grant certiorari to hear it. However, this issue is not presented here. First, the order of the trial court challenged by applicant’s petition for mandamus did in fact provide that the names of applicant’s patients could be deleted. Second, the State of Texas has represented in its response in this Court that it is prepared to enter into a protective order which will ensure the privacy of all patients at applicant’s clinics. In light of the representations of the State of Texas, there is no irreparable injury to any patient’s privacy interests which would justify a stay of the order of the Supreme Court of Texas.
“Therefore, on express condition that the parties agree to a protective order ensuring the privacy of patients at applicant’s clinics, the stay I entered on July 10, 1978, in these proceedings is hereby dissolved. If such a protective order is not entered, applicant may resubmit a further stay application.” Post, at 1308-1309 (footnote omitted).

On August 21, 1978, Mr. Justice Brennan re-entered his stay because the parties had not satisfied the express condition identified in his opinion of July 17, 1978. Post, p. 1354.

On September 16, 1978, Mr. Justice Powell granted an extension of time, until October 30, 1978, in which to file a petition for writ of certiorari. The petition for a writ of certiorari was timely filed on October 30,1978.

Since the rationale for the Court’s jurisdictional holding is unclear, and since adequate reasons for denying certiorari as a matter of discretion are disclosed by Mr. Justice Brennan’s opinion of July 17, 1978, I would simply deny the petition without further explanation.