green
Positive treatment
4.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Contreras v. State
(2×)
See United States v. Oaxaca, 569 F.2d 518, 523-24 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 926 , 99 S.Ct. 310 , 58 L.Ed.2d 319 (1978). .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Lerch
See United States v. Oaxaca, 569 F2d 518, 526 (9th Cir), cert den 439 US 926 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lawrence David Ramapuram
(2×)
See United States v. Ramapuram, 432 F.Supp. 140 (D.Md.1977), aff'd, 577 F.2d 738 (4th Cir.) (unpublished opinion), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 926 , 99 S.Ct. 309 , 58 L.Ed.2d 318 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Larry Burdette Johnson
See United States v. Oaxaca, 569 F.2d 518, 526 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 926 , 99 S.Ct. 310 , 58 L.Ed.2d 319 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Munro
(2×)
As one court said, "It is difficult to see how a lawful search and seizure becomes unreasonable when new information is received linking the property seized with a crime not known to the authorities initially." MacLaird v. State, 718 P.2d 41, 45 (Wyo.1986); see also United States v. Oaxaca, 569 F.2d 518, 523-24 (9th Cir.), cert. den., 439 U.S. 926 , 99 S.Ct. 310 , 58 L.Ed.2d 319 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. A.M.
See U.S. v. Under Seal, 210 F.3d 363 , 2000 WL 305148 (4th Cir.2000) (unpub) (finding that Commonwealth need not explicitly refuse to go forward with the case where on the morning of the scheduled preliminary hearing in state court, a federal agent testified that the state had decided to dismiss the charges against the juvenile and where a letter from a Commonwealth’s attorney confirmed that the Commonwealth did not intend to proceed against the juvenile); Hill, 538 F.2d 1072 (finding that it was not necessary for state court to begin a formal proceeding and issue and a formal order declinin…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Orvel G. Spence
See id.; see also United States v. Oaxaca, 569 F.2d 518, 527 (9th Cir.) (holding that district court properly allowed impeachment of defendant with both a prior burglary and a prior bank conviction where defendant put his credibility at issue by relying on an alibi defense), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 926 (1978).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Jackson v. State
See also United States v. Oaxaca, 9th Cir., 569 F.2d 518, 523-24 , c ert. denied, 439 U.S. 926 , 99 S.Ct. 310 , 58 L.Ed.2d 319 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Donald Washington
(2×)
A juror might well wonder what purpose the prior bank robbery conviction should serve except as evidence that the defendant robs banks; the juror already would know from the larceny conviction that the defendant's veracity is subject to challenge. 20 We have previously upheld a District Judge's exercise of discretion in somewhat similar circumstances, see United States v. Oliver, 626 F.2d 254, 264 (2d Cir.1980); see also United States v. Oaxaca, 569 F.2d 518, 526-27 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 926 , 99 S.Ct. 310 , 58 L.Ed.2d 319 (1978), and thereby consigned the matter to the virtually …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thomas
v.
North Carolina
v.
North Carolina
No. 77-1735.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 30, 1978.
Published
Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.