green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
10.9 score
“the penalties ... against bail jumping and forfeiture of bail as prescribed by rule 46(e), federal rules of criminal procedure, are complementary, and the imposition of one sanction is not meant to preclude the imposition of the other.”
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Shah
the penalties ... against bail jumping and forfeiture of bail as prescribed by rule 46(e), federal rules of criminal procedure, are complementary, and the imposition of one sanction is not meant to preclude the imposition of the other.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Howard v. State
decision of the trial court will be sustained if a valid ground exists to support it
cited
Cited "see"
J.M.M. v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Russell Circuit Court: CC-20-755)
See United States v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 (1978)." In State v. Browder, 486 So. 2d 504 (Ala. Crim.
cited
Cited "see"
A.E.M. v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Russell Circuit Court: CC-20-754)
See United States v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 (1978)." In State v. Browder, 486 So. 2d 504 (Ala. Crim.
discussed
Cited "see"
Michael Craft v. State of Alabama.
See United States v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 (1978).” The situation in State v. Browder, 486 So.2d 504 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), cited in the Advisory Committee’s Notes, was very similar to the situation in the present case.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bennett
(2×)
See United States v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 584 , 58 L.Ed.2d 661 (1978); Angelini, 565 F.2d at 473 ; Poeta, 455 F.2d at 117 ; United States v. McGrath, 622 F.2d 36 (2nd Cir.1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Adams v. State
See Bruce v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 180 , 375 N.E.2d 1042 , cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 586 , 58 L.Ed.2d 662 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. John Thomas McCusker
(2×)
See United States v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373, 1379 (5th Cir.) (failure to transcribe tapes when played to jury “did not prejudice defendants and does not constitute reversible error”), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 584 , 58 L.Ed.2d 661 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Everroad v. State
(2×)
See Bruce v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 180, 200 , 375 N.E.2d 1042, 1054 , cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 586 , 58 L.Ed.2d 662 . [8] We find the Everroads' claim that the fingerprints would have shown that their cousin actually had control of the contraband to be purely speculative. [9] They also claim the controlled substances were inadmissible because the State failed to establish a connection between the controlled substances and the Everroads.
discussed
Cited "see"
51 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1640, 52 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,576, 29 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1358 Willie Lewis Sherman v. Burke Contracting, Inc., and William E. Burke
(2×)
See United States v. Sutherland, 656 F.2d 1181, 1200 (5th Cir. Unit A Sept.1981) ("Recordings must be excluded only if the inaudible or unintelligible portions 'are so substantial as to render the recording as a whole untrustworthy,' and that determination 'is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.' " (quoting United States v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373, 1378 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 584 , 58 L.Ed.2d 661 (1978))), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 949 , 102 S.Ct. 1451 , 71 L.Ed.2d 663 (1982). 14 27 Burke's second claim is that the recording was hearsay.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sherman v. Burke Contracting, Inc.
(2×)
See United States v. Sutherland, 656 F.2d 1181, 1200 (5th Cir. Unit A Sept. 1981) (“Recordings must be excluded only if the inaudible or unintelligible portions ‘are so substantial as to render the recording as a whole untrustworthy,’ and that determination ‘is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.’ ” (quoting United States v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373, 1378 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 584 , 58 L.Ed.2d 661 (1978))), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 949 , 102 S.Ct. 1451 , 71 L.Ed.2d 663 (1982). 14 Burke’s second claim is that the recording was hearsay.
discussed
Cited "see"
Al-Jundi v. Estate Of
"The fact that he was in a high position of authority is an insufficient basis for the imposition of personal liability." McKinnon v. Patterson, 568 F.2d 930, 934 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1087 , 98 S.Ct. 1282 , 55 L.Ed.2d 792 (1978); see Turpin v. Mailet, 579 F.2d 152, 167 (2d Cir.) (in banc) ("notions of respondeat superior have not been incorporated into Sec. 1983 to permit the imposition of liability in damages upon supervisory personnel for the wrongs of their subordinates"), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 586 , 58 L.Ed.2d 662 (1978). 22 Rockefeller's role in the entire…
discussed
Cited "see"
Al-Jundi v. Estate of Rockefeller
“The fact that he was in a high position of authority is an insufficient basis for the imposition of personal liability.” McKinnon v. Patterson, 568 F.2d 930, 934 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1087 , 98 S.Ct. 1282 , 55 L.Ed.2d 792 (1978); see Turpin v. Mailet, 579 F.2d 152, 167 (2d Cir.) (in banc) (“notions of respondeat superior have not been incorporated into § 1983 to permit the imposition of liability in damages upon supervisory personnel for the wrongs of their subordinates”), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 586 , 58 L.Ed.2d 662 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. King
See Bruce v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 180 , 375 N.E.2d 1042 , cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 586 , 58 L.Ed.2d 662 (lack of jurisdiction); Defries v. State (1976), 264 Ind. 233 , 342 N.E.2d 622 (adequacy of the form of the information); Richardson v. State (1983), Ind.App., 456 N.E.2d 1063 (agreement in plea agreement not to prosecute related offense); Strode v. State (1980), Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 183 (double jeopardy); Snodgrass v. State (1979), 182 Ind.App. 473 , 395 N.E.2d 816 , trans. denied (collateral estoppel); Sawyers v. State (1976), 168 Ind.App. 149 , 341 N.E.2d 810 (double jeopar…
discussed
Cited "see"
Doyle v. State
(2×)
Id.; see Bruce v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 180 , 375 N.E.2d 1042 , cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 586 , 58 L.Ed.2d 662 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Wasserman v. Low
(2×)
See United States v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 584 , 58 L.Ed.2d 661 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Judy Ann Archer and Jerry Vaughn Archer
(2×)
See United States v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373 , 1381 n. 7 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 584 , 58 L.Ed.2d 661 (1978). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Hedrick v. State
See Bruce v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 180 , 375 N.E.2d 1042, 1084 , U.S. cert. den. 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 586 , 58 L.Ed.2d 662 ; Jay v. State, (1965) 246 Ind. 534 , 206 N.E.2d 128, 130 , reh. den. 207 N.E.2d 501 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Billy Joe Entrekin
(2×)
See United States v. Mendoza„ 574 F.2d 1373, 1379 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 584 , 58 L.Ed.2d 661 (1978); United States v. Cameron, 556 F.2d 752, 755 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Harper, 450 F.2d 1032, 1045 (5th Cir. 1971).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Albert M. Lefkowitz
(2×)
See United States v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373, 1379 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 584 , 58 L.Ed.2d 661 (1978) (introduc tion of co-conspirator wife’s taped statements did not-violate the privilege against adverse spousal testimony, “because Mrs. Mendoza did not testify at trial”).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ellen Lou Foundas
(2×)
See United States v. Mendoza, 5 Cir. 1978, 574 F.2d 1373, 1377 , cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 584 , 58 L.Ed.2d 661 (1979). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. James A. Blakey and Louis A. Berry
(2×)
See U. S. v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373, 1378-79 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 584 , 58 L.Ed.2d 661 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Baron v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
See, Johnson, 481 F.2d at 1034 ; see also, Turpin v. Mailet, 579 F.2d 152, 167 (2d Cir.1978) (in banc) (“notions of respondeat superior have not been incorporated into § 1983 to permit the imposition of liability in damages upon supervisory personnel for the wrongs of their subordinates”), cer t. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 586 , 58 L.Ed.2d 662 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hamilton
(2×)
For example, in Mason v. Commonwealth, 357 S.W.2d 667 (Ky. 1962), the court observed: It has been stated as the general rule that fingerprints alone will support a conviction only if they are found in the place where the crime was committed "under such circumstances that they could only have been impressed at the time when the crime was committed." To accept this choice of words would, it seems to us, refute the oft-repeated rule in this state that "if there is any evidence, however slight or circumstantial, which tends to show guilt of the crime charged or any of its degrees, it is the trial …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Carlos Armendariz-Mata
(2×)
See also, United States v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373, 1378 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 584 , 58 L.Ed.2d 661 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cornell Byrd
(2×)
See also United States v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 584 , 58 L.Ed.2d 661 (1978) (communications privilege).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Nick Kapnison
(4×)
See also, United States v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 584 , 58 L.Ed.2d 661 (1978) (a crime in which the husband and wife were jointly involved did not prevent admission of conversations between them relative thereto, notwithstanding the marital communications privilege). 44 The Supreme Court, in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 , 94 S.Ct. 3090 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974), cautioned that all privileges should be construed narrowly.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jake Keller Neal
(4×)
See also, United States v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 584 , 58 L.Ed.2d 661 (1978) (a crime in which the husband and wife were jointly involved did not prevent admission of conversations between them relative thereto, notwithstanding the marital communications privilege). 27 The Supreme Court, in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 , 94 S.Ct. 3090 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974), cautioned that all privileges should be construed narrowly.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Knight v. State
See also Bruce v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 180 , 375 N.E.2d 1042 , U.S. cert. den. 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 586 , 58 L.Ed.2d 662 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Harmon Wesley Shields & Jack Vernon Quick
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373, 1377 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 , 99 S.Ct. 584 , 58 L.Ed.2d 661 (1978); United States v. Ransom, 515 F.2d 885, 889 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 944 , 96 S.Ct. 1412 , 47 L.Ed.2d 349 (1976); United States v. Craig, 573 F.2d 455, 476 (7th Cir. 1977); United States v. Rich, 518 F.2d 980, 985 (8th Cir. 1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Collins
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 78-5417.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 27, 1978.
Cited by 66 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Indiana Supreme Court (1) · E.D. Wisconsin (1)
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.