green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
10.6 score
“under the modern theory of contracts we look to objective, not subjective, criteria in ascertaining the intent of the parties”
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Sprague v. General Motors Corp.
under the modern theory of contracts we look to objective, not subjective, criteria in ascertaining the intent of the parties
discussed
Cited "see"
Great Minds v. Office Depot, Inc.
See United States v. King Features Entm’t, Inc., 843 F.2d 394 , 398 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison v. Telex Corp., 602 F.2d 866, 871 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 (1979)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith v. United States
See Sousa v. United States, 400 A.2d 1036, 1042 (D.C.) (finding that the co-defendants' defenses were not irreconcilable simply be *121 cause the defendants admitted being present at the scene of the crime but denied participation in the criminal conduct), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
J.R. Maffei Richard Maffei Betty J. Maffei v. Northern Insurance Company of New York Maryland Casualty Co.
(2×)
See Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison v. Telex Corp., 602 F.2d 866, 873 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 483 , 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Void v. United States
See Sousa v. United States, 400 A.2d 1036, 1040 (D.C.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 485, 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979); see also Arnold v. United States, 511 A.2d 399, 404 (D.C.1986) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brown v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
See Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison v. Telex Corp., 602 F.2d 866, 871 (9th Cir.) (applying California law, which governs the interpretation of the 1964 agreement), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 483 , 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1979); Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 617 F.2d 936, 940 (2d Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Donald Carson, United States of America v. Anthony Gallagher
See United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1305-06 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 957 , 108 S.Ct. 355 , 98 L.Ed.2d 380 (1987) (‘‘[t]he brief [three day] gap between the termination of the first wiretap order and the issuance of the second does not prevent the latter from being an extension of the former") (citing United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269, 1277-78 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979)).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Billy Russell Duggan
Id.; see Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513, 517 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 485 , 62 L.Ed.2d 409 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hill v. United States
(2×)
See Sousa v. United States, 400 A.2d 1036, 1041 (D.C.) (citing Schaffer v. United States, 362 U.S. 511, 516 , 80 S.Ct. 945, 948 , 4 L.Ed.2d 921 (1960)), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979); see also Ready v. United States, 445 A.2d 982 , 987-88 n. 10 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1025 , 103 S.Ct. 1279 , 75 L.Ed.2d 498 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Burford
See United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269, 1274 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Staatz
(2×)
See Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 485 , 62 L.Ed.2d 409 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Trident Center v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company
See Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison v. Telex Corp., 602 F.2d 866, 872 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 483 , 62 *567 L.Ed.2d 407 (1979) (California law); Cal. Civ.Proc.Code § 1858 (West 1983); 4 S. Williston, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 618, at 714-15 (3d ed. 1961); id. § 624, at 825.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wynn v. United States
See Sousa v. United States, 400 A.2d 1036, 1044 (D.C.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Castillo v. State
See Nash, supra [Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513 (5th Cir.1979) cert denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 485 , 62 L.Ed.2d 409 (1979)], at 519; Thompson v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768, 772 (5th Cir.1979).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Murad Nersesian
See United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269, 1277-78 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Hector Mora, United States of America v. Franklin Valencia, United States of America v. Jose Alberto Valencia, United States of America v. Luis Fernando Berrio
See United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269, 1275-76 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 (1979); United States v. Sotomayor, 592 F.2d 1219, 1225-26 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2842 , 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979); Mora I, 623 F.Supp. at 364 . 3 13 As to the initial string of interceptions, the warrant was implemented on March 22, 1985 and used through April 6, 1985.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mora
See United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269, 1275-76 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 (1979); United States v. Sotomayor, 592 F.2d 1219, 1225-26 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2842 , 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979); Mora I, 623 F.Supp. at 364 . 3 As to the initial string of interceptions, the warrant was implemented on March 22, 1985 and used through April 6, 1985.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Feola
See United States v. Vasquez, 605 F.2d 1269 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Sleek v. State
See Nash v. Estelle (5th Cir.1979), 597 F.2d 513 (en bane), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 485 , 62 L.Ed.2d 409 ; State v. Robtoy (1982), 98 Wash.2d 30 , 653 P.2d 284 .
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Venuti
(3×)
See United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269, 1278 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bankr. L. Rep. P 70,798 in Re Boston and Maine Corporation, Debtor v. Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green, P.A.
See Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison v. Telex Corp., 602 F.2d 866, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 483 , 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1979) (while $1 million minimum fee was “clearly high,” client received services of “substantial value,” and the fairness of a fee agreement should be “determined with reference to the time when the contract was made”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Mora
See, United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269, 1282 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 1019, 100 S.Ct. 484 , 674, 62 L.Ed.2d 408 , 649 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nollie Lee Martin v. Louie L. Wainwright
(2×)
We previously have held that equivocal invocations of the right to counsel immediately limit the scope of police questioning to "clarifying [the] equivocal request." Thompson v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768, 771 (5th Cir.1979); see Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513, 517 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 485 , 62 L.Ed.2d 409 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Castellano
The Second Circuit has consistently held that the purpose of these “other investigative techniques” requirements “is not to foreclose electronic surveillance until every other imaginable method of investigation has been unsuccessfully attempted, but simply to inform the issuing judge of the difficulties involved in the use of conventional techniques.” Moreover, the required showing is to “be tested in a practical and commonsense fashion.” In short, the requirement is “simply designed to assure that wiretapping is not resorted to in situations where traditional investigation techn…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Massino
See United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269, 1282 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979); United States v. Fury, supra, at 530.
discussed
Cited "see"
Williamson v. State
(2×)
See Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 485 , 62 L.Ed.2d 409 (1979); People v. Krueger, 412 N.E.2d 537 (111.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1019 , 101 S.Ct. 3009 , 69 L.Ed.2d 390 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ragusa
See United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269, 1276-77 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979); United States v. Sotomayor, 592 F.2d 1219, 1223 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom, Crespo v. United States, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2842 , 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979); United States v. Manfredi, 488 F.2d 588, 592 (2d Cir.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 936 , 94 S.Ct. 2651 , 41 L.Ed.2d 240 (1974).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Guy Mickey McNulty George O'brien, Theodore Tulper, Donald Staadts, James Nestoff and Dennis Valley
(4×)
See United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269, 1274-80 (2d Cir.1979), ce rt. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979), 444 U.S. 1019 , 100 S.Ct. 674 , 62 L.Ed.2d 649 (1980); United States v. Sotomayor, 592 F.2d 1219, 1222-27 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2842 , 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Van Horn
See United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269 , 1280 n. 26 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979); and United States v. Howell, 581 F.Supp. 65, 68 (D.Neb.1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Shishido v. SIU-Pacific District-PMA Pension Plan
See Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison v. Telex Corp., 602 F.2d 866, 871 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 483 , 62 L.Ed.2d 407 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Tehfe
See United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269 , 1280 n. 26 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 1019, 100 S.Ct. 484 , 674, 62 L.Ed.2d 408 , 649 (1979); see also State v. Sanchez, 149 N.J.Super. 381, 394-97 , 373 A.2d 1028, 1034-36 (Law Div.1977) (suggesting differences between federal and New Jersey wiretap statute in other areas). .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Tehfe
See United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269 , 1280 n. 26 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 1019, 100 S.Ct. 484 , 674, 62 L.Ed.2d 408 , 649 (1979); see also State v. Sanchez, 149 N.J.Super. 381, 394-97 , 373 A.2d 1028, 1034-36 (Law Div.1977) (suggesting differences between federal and New Jersey wiretap statute in other areas) 4 The affidavit states that this event occurred in 1982.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Tufaro
See United States v. Vazquez (2d Cir.1979) 605 F.2d 1269, 1281 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dorfman
See United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269, 1281 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979); United States v. Vento, 533 F.2d 838, 844 (3d Cir. 1976); United States v. McHale, 495 F.2d 15, 17-18 (7th Cir. 1974); United States v. Mainello, 345 F.Supp. 863, 869-70 (E.D.N.Y. 1972); United States v. Becker, 334 F.Supp. 546, 548 (S.D.N.Y.1971).
cited
Cited "see"
Williamson v. United States
See Sousa v. United States, D.C.App., 400 A.2d 1036, 1044 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Jennings v. State
See Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 485 , 62 L.Ed.2d 409 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Prestigiacomo
See Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513, 517 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 485 , 62 L.Ed.2d 409 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Wilbert E. Hackley
(2×)
See Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 485 , 62 L.Ed.2d 409 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Haverstock v. Wolf
See Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison v. Telex Corp., 602 F.2d 866 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 483 , 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1979).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Tillman v. United States
See also Sousa v. United States, 400 A.2d 1036,1042 (D.C.), cert denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979); Sweet, supra, 438 A.2d at 451 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Antonio Badalamenti, Andrea Gambino, Ferdinando Capasso, Defendants
See also United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269, 1278 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1980) (delay beyond one or two days calls for explanation).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carl Bradburn v. O.L. McCotter Director, Texas Department of Corrections
Jardina stated without the slightest ambiguity that he would then and there answer some questions but not others____ Jardina’s statements and actions did not invoke any present right to counsel. 747 F.2d at 949 (emphasis added); see also Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513, 518 (5th Cir.1979) (en banc), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 485 , 6 L.Ed.2d 409 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Orozco
See also United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269, 1282 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979); United States v. Tufaro, 593 F.Supp. 476, 485 (S.D.N.Y.1983), aff'd, 762 F.2d 991 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Dorfman, 542 F.Supp. 345, 367 (N.D.Ill.1982), aff'd, 690 F.2d 1217 (7th Cir.1982), rev’d, 690 F.2d 1230 (7th Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carter v. State
(2×)
See also, Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 485 , 62 L.Ed.2d 409 (1979); U.S. v. Riggs, 537 F.2d 1219 (4th Cir.1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McKenzie Construction, Inc. v. Desmond L. Maynard
(2×)
See also Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison v. Telex Corp., 602 F.2d 866, 875 (9th Cir.) (California law), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 483 , 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1979). 17 We believe that the district court had too narrow a view.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Eugene Anderson v. Harold J. Smith, Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility
See, e.g., Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513, 517 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (suspect’s intent unclear when he expressed contradictory desires, “a desire for counsel and a desire to continue the interview without counsel”), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 485 , 62 L.Ed.2d 409 (1979); United States v. Riggs, 537 F.2d 1219, 1222 (4th Cir.1976) (suspect’s statement that he had “no information” could be interpreted “as a mere declaration of ignorance not precluding further cooperation with the investigation”). 8 Miranda itself approved such clarifying questions.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Charles C. Jardina
See also Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513, 517-18 (5th Cir.1979) (en banc), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 485 , 62 L.Ed.2d 409 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lilla
See, e.g., United States v. Vasquez, 605 F.2d 1269 , 1280 n.26 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 484 , 62 L.Ed.2d 408 (1979); United States v. Sotomayor, 592 F.2d 1219, 1224-26 (2d Cir. 1979); United States v. Fury, 554 F.2d 522 , 525 n.3 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 931 , 98 S.Ct. 2831 , 56 L.Ed.2d 776 (1978); United States v. Hinton, 543 F.2d 1002, 1011 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., 429 U.S. 980 , 1051, 1066, 97 S.Ct. 493 , 796, 50 L.Ed.2d 589, 783 (1976), 430 U.S. 982 , 97 S.Ct. 1677 , 52 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977); United States v. Marion, 535 F.2d 697, 702 (2d Cir. 1…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Pacific Far East Line, Inc. v. Official Creditor Committee (In re Pacific Far East Line, Inc.)
See also Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison v. Telex Corp., 602 F.2d 866, 871 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 , 100 S.Ct. 483 , 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1980).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In the Matter of Pacific Far East Line, Inc., Debtor. Joseph M. Alioto v. Official Creditor Committee
See also Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison v. Telex Corp., 602 F.2d 866, 871 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981, 100 S.Ct. 483 , 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Telex Corp.
v.
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison
v.
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison
No. 79-590.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 3, 1979.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. Michigan (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.