green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
8.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1985 ·
…jury can infer a defendant's intent to distribute from the quantity of drugs in the defendant's possession.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Paula Lewis, United States of America v. Gary Darnall, United States of America v. Terry Crafton, United States of America v. Ross Alan Milburn, United States of America v. Marion Milburn, United States of America v. Ross E. Milburn, United States of America v. Ronald Throop, United States of America v. Paula Throop
jury can infer a defendant's intent to distribute from the quantity of drugs in the defendant's possession.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Lewis
jury can infer a defendant's intent to distribute from the quantity of drugs in the defendant's possession.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Antonio Cruz Vazquez, Benito Luis Cortina, Antonio Gonzalez, Andres Rene Rappard, and Jose De La Fe-Quintas
this is a federal prosecution, and federal law determines whether suppression is appropri 1276 ate.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Erroll Flynn Shepard
See United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1352 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Erroll Flynn Shepard, United States of America v. Tony Skannell, Also Known as Tomcat, United States of America v. Barry Renfold Cooley, United States of America v. Roy G. Straughan, Also Known as George Clark, Also Known as C-Note (3), Also Known as C-Nutt (3)
See United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1352 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979). 37 "A bill of particulars serves to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against him with sufficient precision to enable him to prepare for trial, [and] to avoid or minimize the danger of surprise at trial." United States v. Hernandez, 299 F.3d 984 , 989-990 (8th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1134 , 123 S.Ct. 918 , 154 L.Ed.2d 825 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Johnson
Wessels, 12 F.3d at 750 ; accord United States v. Hester, 917 F.2d 1083, 1084 (8th Cir.1990) (cautioning that “a bül of particulars is not a proper tool for discovery,” and so the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a defendant’s “discovery-oriented bül of particulars”) (citing United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1352 (8th Cir.), cert, denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gotti
(2×)
See, e.g., Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 366 , 84 S.Ct. 881 , 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964); see United States v. Sotomayor, 592 F.2d 1219, 1223-24 (2d Cir.) (collecting cases), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2842 , 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Clark
See State v. Phillips, 365 So.2d 1304 (La.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Workman
(2×)
See 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (2)(c) (emphasis added) 4 We recognize a tension with United States v. Sotomayor, 592 F.2d 1219 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2842 , 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Willie J. Brown, United States of America v. Theodore R. Vaughn, United States of America v. James R. Sheil
(2×)
See United States v. Sotomayor, 592 F.2d 1219, 1226 (2d Cir.), cert. *659 denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2842 , 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
People v. Gagliani
See People v. Rehbein (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 435, 441 , cert. denied (1979), 442 U.S. 919 , 61 L.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America
See Turner v. Air Transport Lodge 1948, 590 F.2d 409 , 412 (2d Cir.1978) (Mulligan J. concurring), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2841 , 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Tyler
See State v. Phillips, 365 So.2d 1304 (La. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sanchez
(2×)
See United States v. Sotomayor, 592 F.2d 1219, 1225 (2d Cir.) (When using a state wiretap in a federal prosecution, “more stringent state statutory requirements that are designed to protect an individual’s right to privacy” should be applied.), cer t. denied 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2842 , 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gerena
(2×)
See United States v. Sotomayor, 592 F.2d 1219, 1225-26 (2d Cir.1979), ce rt. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2842 , 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979) (“whatever interest, if any, the state may have in securring federal enforcement of its sealing requirements through application of the exclusionary rule is outweighed by the federal interest in establishing its own standards for the admission of lawfully obtained wiretaps into evidence”).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Gamble
See State v. Phillips, 365 So.2d 1304 (La. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Marvin Leo Beasley
See United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Salvatore F. Spadaccino
(2×)
Although normally the admissibility of evidence in a federal criminal prosecution is governed by federal law, e.g., Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 366 , 84 *297 S.Ct. 881, 882, 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964); see United States v. Sotomayor, 592 F.2d 1219, 1223-24 (2d Cir.) (collecting cases), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2842 , 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979), we noted in Sotomayor that we might require the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of a substantive provision of a state statute designed to protect an individual’s right of privacy, where the state courts would exclude the evi…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Donald P. Matlock
See generally, United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1351-52 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979); United States v. Miller, supra, 543 F.2d at 1224 ; Hemphill v. United States, supra, 392 F.2d at 49 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Anthony Edward Anzalone and Angelo Rios
(2×)
See United States v. Sotomayor, 592 F.2d 1219, 1227-28 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2842 , 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lonnie D. Rhoads
See United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1349 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979); United States v. Little, 562 F.2d 578, 580 (8th Cir. 1977); United States v. Wisdom, 534 F.2d 1306, 1309 (8th Cir. 1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Petrone
(2×)
See United States v. Sotomayer, 592 F.2d 1219 , 1227 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2842 , 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
As this Court has stated previously, “the IBT’s sanctioning members in order to rid itself of corrupt influence conforms with [ 29 U.S.C. § 411 (a)(2) ], and infringes no First Amendment rights.” Friedman, 838 F.Supp. at 812 (quotation omitted); see also Turner v. Air Transport Lodge 1891, 590 F.2d 409 , 412 (2d Cir.1978) (Mulligan, J. concurring), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2841 , 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State ex rel. S.M.
See also State v. Phillips, 365 So.2d 1304, 1308 (La.1978), cert. denied 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 ; McDonald v. State, 513 S.W.2d 44, 46-47 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); State v. Childs, 146 Wis.2d 116 , 430 N.W.2d 353, 355 (1988), cert. denied 489 U.S. 1025 , 109 S.Ct. 1154 , 103 L.Ed.2d 213 (1989); Murray v. State, 770 P.2d 1131, 1139 (Alaska Ct.App.1989).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State in Interest of SM
See also State v. Phillips, 365 So. 2d 1304, 1308 (La. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed. 2d 287 ; McDonald v. State, 513 S.W. 2d 44, 46-47 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Sasson Jeans, Inc.
(2×)
See Notes of Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 49; see also United States v. Lujan, 589 F.2d 436, 438, n. 1 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2842 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Grand Jury Investigation
(2×)
See also United States v. Sotomayor, 592 F.2d 1219, 1225 (2d Cir.) (holding that state standards designed to protect individual’s rights, if more stringent than federal standards, are to be applied if wiretap issued pursuant to state warrant), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2842 , 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Juan Cabada Arenal, A/K/A David Omera, A/K/A Cansio, United States of America v. Pablo Diaz, United States of America v. Rene Cordero, United States of America v. Daniel Rogelio Gonzales
See also United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1352 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979). 24 In the present case, we agree that the wording of Count VII was vague, particularly with respect to the place of the alleged criminal act.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Arenal
See also United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1352 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
U. S. Labor Party
v.
Whitman
v.
Whitman
No. 78-1660.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 4, 1979.
Published
Citer courts: Eighth Circuit (2) · Second Circuit (1)
Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.