green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
7.6 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2006 ·
…in reviewing a decision of a trial court on this issue we must look at the evidence in a light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Mustafa
Berger, Evidence, para. 702[03] (1982); see also United States v. Williams, 583 F.2d 1194 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1117 , 99 S.Ct. 1025 , 59 L.Ed.2d 77 (1979); State v. Hall, 297 N.W.2d 80 (Iowa 1980); but see United States v. Brady, 595 F.2d 359 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 129 , 62 L.Ed.2d 84 (1979). .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Timothy Chambers
in reviewing a decision of a trial court on this issue we must look at the evidence in a light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Chambers
in reviewing a decision of a trial court on this issue we must look at the evidence in a light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Joe Dean Swift (86-1079), James C. Hettmansperger (86-1083)
in reviewing a decision of a trial court on this issue we must look at the evidence in a light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Thurman
See, United States v. Hans, 684 F.2d 343, 346 (6th Cir.1982) (“A rule 403 exclusion is appropriate only where the probative value of the relevant evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”) (citing United States v. Brady, 595 F.2d 359, 361 (6th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 129 , 62 L.Ed.2d 84 (1979)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Danny Wade Arthur (90-6080), and Terry Keith Arthur (90-6079)
(2×)
See United States v. Brady, 595 F.2d 359, 361 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 129 , 62 L.Ed.2d 84 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Clarksville-Montgomery County School System v. United States Gypsum Company, National Gypsum Company
See United States v. Brady, 595 F.2d 359, 361 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 129 , 62 L.Ed.2d 84 (1979); see also Turner v. Allstate Ins.
cited
Cited "see"
Brown v. Sims
See United States v. Roark, 753 F.2d 991 (11th Cir.1985), (citing United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700, 707 (5th Cir.)), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 128 , 62 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Scot Lad Foods, Inc. v. Ames Food Market, Inc.
See United States v. Brady, 595 F.2d 359, 361 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 (1979); Geisler v. Folsom, 735 F.2d 991, 997 (6th Cir. 1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Frank L. Hook
(2×)
See United States v. Brady, 595 F.2d 359, 361 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 129 , 62 L.Ed.2d 84 (1979); United States v. Jenkins, 525 F.2d 819, 824 (6th Cir.1975) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
City of Cleveland v. The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company
(2×)
See United States v. Hans, 684 F.2d 343, 346 (6th Cir.1982), quoting United States v. Brady, 595 F.2d 359, 361 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 129 , 62 L.Ed.2d 84 (1979) 9 Neither Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 , 99 S.Ct. 970 , 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979), nor United States v. Utah Construction Co., 384 U.S. 394 , 86 S.Ct. 1545 , 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966), relied upon by the City, compel a different conclusion.
discussed
Cited "see"
Alfred Charles Grady v. United States
See United States v. Berry, 599 F.2d 267, 269 (8th Cir.), cert, denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 129 , 62 L.Ed.2d 84 (1979); United States v. Pitts, 508 F.2d 1237, 1240 (8th Cir.1974), cert, denied, 421 U.S. 967 , 95 S.Ct. 1958 , 44 L.Ed.2d 455 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert Anthony Smith
See United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 128 , 62 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lawton Scott Mock
See United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700, 707 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 128 , 62 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979), or for evidence adding only a minor “incremental probity,” United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 914 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 920 , 99 S.Ct. 1244 , 59 L.Ed.2d 472 (1979).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Williamson v. Reynolds
See also United States v. Brady, 595 F.2d 359, 362 (6th Cir.1979), ce rt. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 129 , 62 L.Ed.2d 84 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruce R. WEST, Sr., Defendant-Appellant
“The exclusion of evidence under Rule 403,” however, “should occur only sparingly.” United States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106, 1115 (5th Cir.1993); see also United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700, 707 (5th Cir.) (noting that Rule 403’s “major function is limited to excluding matter of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 128 , 62 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. West
"The exclusion of evidence under Rule 403," however, "should occur only sparingly." United States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106, 1115 (5th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700, 707 (5th Cir.) (noting that Rule 403's "major function is limited to excluding matter of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect"), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S. Ct. 128 , 62 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Evans
Additionally, it does not affirmatively appear that the “admission of the photographs has affected the results of the trial.” Tenn.R.Crim.P. 52; see also, United States v. Brady, 595 F.2d 359, 361 (6th Cir. (construing Fed.R.Evid. 403), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 , 100 S.Ct. 129 , 62 L.Ed.2d 84 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lord
(2×)
See also United States v. Brady, 595 F.2d 359, 363 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 (1979); United States v. Oaxaca, 569 F.2d 518, 526 (9th Cir.) (necessarily imprecise nature of the hair identification went to the weight of the testimony, rather than its admissibility), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 926 (1978); United States v. Cyphers, 553 F.2d 1064, 1072-73 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 843 (1977); United States v. Baller, 519 F.2d 463, 466 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1019 (1975); Jent v. State, 408 So. 2d 1024, 1029 (Fla. 1981) (that hair analyst could not positively identify ha…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Eugene Hardin, Sr. (84-5643), Eugene Hardin, Jr. (84-5644) Paul A. Bisic, Jr. (84-5736) Norvin E. Green, III (84-5737)
See, e.g., United States v. Brady, 595 F.2d 359, 361 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862 (1979).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Elms
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 78-6898.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 1979.
Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (3)
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.