green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 9×
19.2 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2020–2023 ·
…questions of intent involve many intangible factors, such as witness credibility, that are best left to the consideration of a fact finder after a full trial.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 45 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
First National Bank & Trust Co. Weatherford v. Hobbs
questions of intent involve many intangible factors, such as witness credibility, that are best left to the consideration of a fact finder after a full trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Stewart
questions of intent involve many intangible factors, such as witness credibility, that are best left to the consideration of a fact finder after a full trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
David A Stewart and Terry P Stewart
questions of intent involve many intangible factors, such as witness credibility, that are best left to the consideration of a fact finder after a full trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Obed Saul Barragan Reyes - Adversary Proceeding
questions of intent involve many intangible factors, such as witness credibility, that are best left to the consideration of a fact finder after a full trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
The Shack, LLC v. Hickman
questions of intent involve many intangible factors, such as witness credibility, that are best left to the consideration of a fact finder after a full trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jenkins v. Security Sav. Bank of Michigan
there is no cause of action under the civil rights act in this case where the state did no more than furnish a forum to private parties and had no interest in the outcome
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Bertucci v. Brown
(2×)
nothing in the complaint indicates that the court or the attorneys were acting outside the confines of the neutral function of a judicial forum.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Tribunal
it has been established that sin does not own approximately 40 of the program
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Max Allen Ellison
Defendant relied on the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Ocanas, 628 F.2d 353 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 *1106 (1981) as support for his contention.
discussed
Cited "see"
National Labor Relations Board v. Katz's Delicatessen Of Houston Street, Inc.
See Sahara-Tahoe Corp. v. NLRB, 648 F.2d 553 , 556 n. 4 (9th Cir.1980) (explaining contract-bar doctrine and "open period" under NLRB law), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2317 , 68 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981); NLRB v. Bayliss Trucking Corp., 432 F.2d 1025 , 1027 n. 3 (2d Cir.1970) (same) 4 Pursuant to the NLRB's decision in Louisiana Dock Co., 297 N.L.R.B. 439 (1989), the ALJ ordered reimbursement of dues and fees only for those Katz's employees who were required to join Local 131 by virtue of the union security clause in the collective bargaining agreement 5 The Board did, however, refuse to a…
discussed
Cited "see"
National Labor Relations Board v. Katz's Delicatessen of Houston Street, Inc.
See Sahara-Tahoe Corp. v. NLRB, 648 F.2d 553 , 556 n. 4 (9th Cir.1980) (explaining contract-bar doctrine and "open period” under NLRB law), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2317 , 68 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981); NLRB v. Bayliss Trucking Corp., 432 F.2d 1025 , 1027 n. 3 (2d Cir.1970) (same). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Missouri v. United States
See South Dakota v. Adams, 506 F.Supp. 50, 58 (finding that statute was not coercive in light of the fact that the State had not enacted the legislation desired by Congress), aff'd sub. nom South Dakota v. Goldschmidt, 635 F.2d 698 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Mo. v. United States
See South Dakota v. Adams, 506 F.Supp. 50, 58 (finding that statute was not coercive in light of the fact that the State had not enacted the legislation desired by Congress), aff'd sub. nom South Dakota v. Goldschmidt, 635 F.2d 698 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. The United States International Trade Commission
See Shindelar v. Holdeman, 628 F.2d 1337, 1343 , 207 USPQ 112, 117 (CCPA 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2317 , 68 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission
See Shindelar v. Holdeman, 628 F.2d 1337, 1343 , 207 USPQ 112, 117 (CCPA 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2317 , 68 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Abrams v. Union Bank
See Nesbitt v. United States, 622 F.2d 433 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matthew Cobb, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Saturn Land Company, Inc., Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant
See Prochaska v. Marcoux, 632 F.2d 848, 854 (10th Cir.1980) (quoting Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 762 , 100 S.Ct. 2455, 2462 , 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980)), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Christian Lopez
(2×)
See United States v. Ocanas, 628 F.2d 353, 358 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981) (as a general rule, either party to plea agreement may withdraw its consent until plea bargain has been accepted by court).
cited
Cited "see"
Stephens v. State of Mich.
See Prochaska v. Marcoux, 632 F.2d 848, 851 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Levy v. City of Cherry Hills Village
See Prochaska v. Marcoux, 632 F.2d 848, 853-54 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981); Scheriff v. Beck, 452 F.Supp. 1254 (D.Colo.1978).
examined
Cited "see"
Wisconsin Gas Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See 15 U.S.C. § 717r (1982). .Petitioner Great Lakes also contends the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking did not give "a description of the subjects or issues involved,” 5 U.S.C. § 553 (b)(3), sufficient to afford "interested parties a reasonable opportunity to participate in the rulemaking." Trans-Pacific Freight Conference of Japan/Korea v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 650 F.2d 1235, 1248 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2315 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dan Holman
(2×)
See generally, United States v. Ocanas, 628 F.2d 353 (5th Cir.1980) cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981) (noting that the trial court’s acceptance or rejection plays a critical role in the plea agreement process); United States v. Thomas, 580 F.2d 1036 (10th Cir.1978) cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1130 , 99 S.Ct. 1051 , 59 L.Ed.2d 92 (1979) (treating a promise “on behalf of the judiciary” the same as a promise by the government).
discussed
Cited "see"
American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Donovan
(2×)
See Transpacific Freight Conference v. FMC, 650 F.2d 1235 , 1249 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981); Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1 , 48 (D.C.Cir.), (en banc), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 941 , 96 S.Ct. 2663 , 49 L.Ed.2d 394 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
AFL-CIO v. Donovan
(2×)
See Transpacific Freight Conference v. FMC, 650 F.2d 1235 , 1249 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981); Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1 , 48 (D.C.Cir.), ( en banc ), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 941 , 96 S.Ct. 2663 , 49 L.Ed.2d 394 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Anthony T. Mulherin, Jr., Harvey E. Hornsby, Robert A. Holliday, Henry Mulherin, Elizabeth Moore
(2×)
See U.S. v. Ocanas, 628 F.2d 353, 361 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
National Labor Relations Board v. Price's Pic-Pac Supermarkets, Inc.
See NLRB v. Max Factor & Co., 640 F.2d 197, 204 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 983 , 101 S.Ct. 2314 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Levino Michelena-Orovio
(4×)
See United States v. Ocanas, 628 F.2d 353 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ira Eugene Borchardt
(2×)
See United States v. Ocanas, 628 F.2d 353, 361 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
A.G. Becker Incorporated v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, A.G. Becker Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, an Agency of the United States, A.G. Becker, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Securities Industry Association v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, A.G. Becker Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, an Agency of the United States Securities Industry Association v. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
See Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System v. Investment Co. Inst., 450 U.S. 46 , 56 n. 21, 101 S.Ct. 973 , 981 n. 21, 67 L.Ed.2d 36 (1981) (citing Agnew) [hereinafter cited as ICI II ] 23 See infra p. 143 24 Puerto Rico v. Blumenthal, 642 F.2d 622, 635 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 983 , 101 S.Ct. 2315 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981); Chisholm v. FCC, 538 F.2d 349 , 358 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 890 , 97 S.Ct. 247 , 50 L.Ed.2d 173 (1976) 25 Cf. M & M Leasing Corp. v. Seattle First Nat'l Bank, 563 F.2d 1377 , 1382 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 956 , 98 S.Ct. 3069 , 57 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Dunbar, 87317 (6-28-2007)
See [U.S. v. Cruz (C.A. 1, 1983), 709 F.2d 111 , 114 ]; See also, United States v. Ocanas (C.A. 5, 1980), 628 F.2d 353 , 358 , certiorari denied (1981), 451 U.S. 984 . {¶ 137} "`(* * *) If the plea is accepted, the judge does not announce any deferral of that acceptance, and the defendant adheres to the terms of the bargain, *Page 28 all parties to it are bound [* * *].' * * * United States v. Kurkculer (CA . 1, 1990), 918 F.2d 295 , 301 , quoting Cruz , supra, at 115 . {¶ 138} "The same rule appears to apply in Ohio.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Dunbar, 87317 (4-12-2007)
See [ U.S. v. Cruz (C.A. 1, 1983), 709 F.2d 111 , 114 ]; See also, United States v. Ocanas (C.A. 5, 1980), 628 F.2d 353 , 358 , certiorari denied (1981), 451 U.S. 984 . {¶ 138} "`(* * *) If the plea is accepted, the judge does not announce any deferral of that acceptance, and the defendant adheres to the terms of the bargain, all parties to it are bound [* * *].' * * * United States v. Kurkculer (C.A. 1, 1990), 918 F.2d 295 , 301 , quoting Cruz , supra, at 115 . {¶ 139} "The same rule appears to apply in Ohio.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gary Lynn Tucker
See also United States v. Savage, 978 F.2d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 1992) (outlining the "detrimental reliance exception" to the general rule that "either party should be entitled to modify its position and even withdraw its consent to the bargain until the plea is tendered and the bargain as it then exists is accepted by the court") (quoting United States v. Ocanas, 628 F.2d 353, 358 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 (1981)). 6 AFFIRMED. * Honorable Thomas M.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mozer
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Ocanas, 628 F.2d 353, 356-58 (5th Cir.1980) (government filed superseding indictment charging larger and longer conspiracy), cer t. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981), explained in United States v. Smith, 648 F.Supp. 495, 498 (S.D.Tex.1986) (“The additional information in the superseding indictment [in Ocanas] reasonably changed the Government’s position with respect to the plea agreement and formed the basis for the Government’s decision to withdraw the plea agreement.”); United States v. Papaleo, 853 F.2d at 18 n. 1 (defendant in…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
American Medical Association, Cross-Appellant v. United States of America, Cross-Appellee
(2×)
See, e.g., Trans-Pacific Freight Conference v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 650 F.2d 1235 , 1249 (D.C.Cir.1980) (Wilkey, J.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2315 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981); South Terminal Corp. v. EPA, 504 F.2d 646 , 659 (1st Cir.1974). 8 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Luis Carlos MacIas Nieto
See also United States v. Ocanas, 628 F.2d 353, 361-62 (5th Cir.1980) (trial court could properly impose consecutive sentences for convictions for conspiracy to possess and possession of marijuana), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 (1981).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Goichman v. City of Aspen
See also Prochaska v. Marcoux, 632 F.2d 848 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Goichman v. City of Aspen
See also Prochaska v. Marcoux, 632 F.2d 848 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
National Labor Relations Board v. Auto Fast Freight, Inc.
See also Clear Pine Mouldings, Inc. v. NLRB, 632 F.2d 721, 729 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2317 , 68 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wisconsin Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Anr Pipeline Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Transwestern Pipeline Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, a Division of Tenneco Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. City Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Madison Gas & Electric Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Wisconsin Power & Light Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Wisconsin Natural Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Wisconsin Power & Light Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Gas Utilities Company, Intervenors. Trunkline Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Gas Utilities Company, Intervenors. Migc, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company, a Division of Arkla, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd., Intervenors. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd., Intervenors. Algonquin Gas Transmission Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd., Intervenors. Texas Gas Transmission Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Consumers Power Company, Intervenors. Pacific Interstate Offshore Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Consumers Power Company, Intervenors. Cascade Natural Gas Corporation, Northwest Natural Gas Company, Washington Natural Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Consumers Power Company, Intervenors. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company, a Division of Arkla, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Intervenors. Transwestern Pipeline Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd., Intervenors. Migc, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company, a Division of Arkla, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(2×)
See also Trans-Pacific Freight Conference of Japan/Korea v. Federal Maritime Commission, 650 F.2d 1235, 1245 (D.C.Cir.1980) ("Rulemaking permits more precise definition of statutory standards than would otherwise arise through protracted piecemeal litigation of particular issues."), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2315 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981). 36 B.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
H.B. Fuller Co. v. National Starch & Chemical Corp.
See, e.g., Prochaska v. Marcoux, 632 F.2d 848, 851 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981); Charbonnages de France v. Smith, 597 F.2d 406, 414 (4th Cir.1979); Sterling Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of N.Y. v. Fidelity Mortgage Investors, 510 F.2d 870, 875 (2d Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cesar Augusto Correa-Arroyave
(2×)
See also United States v. Ocanas, 628 F.2d 353, 359-60 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981); United States v. Grassi, 616 F.2d 1295, 1300 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 363 , 66 L.Ed.2d 220 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jose A. Gonzalez
(2×)
See also United States v. Ocanas, 628 F.2d 353, 359-60 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2316 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981); United States v. Grassi, 616 F.2d 1295, 1300 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 363 , 66 L.Ed.2d 220 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Global Van Lines, Inc., Wheaton Van Lines, Inc., and Freight Forwarders Institute v. Interstate Commerce Commission and the United States of America
(2×)
See, e.g., Trans-Pacific Freight Conference v. FMC, 650 F.2d 1235 , 1259 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2315 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
National Labor Relations Board v. Complas Industries, Inc.
Compare Clear Pine Mouldings, Inc. v. NLRB, 632 F.2d 721, 728 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2317 , 68 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981) (ALJ adjourned the hearings for six weeks to enable the company to meet the new allegation; the company had an opportunity to prepare its defense, and the issue was fully litigated). *735 IY If the conversation between respondent’s vice-president and the employee does not constitute an unfair labor practice even without presentation of respondent’s evidence, then it becomes unnecessary for us to remand for the purpose of providing the respondent …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Nesbitt
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 80-1256.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 18, 1981.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.