green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.1 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“If there is some justification for concentrating a surveillance on a particular place, as opposed to random investigation to discover criminal activity, that factor is weighed in the balance and contributes to justification for the surveillance.”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“To state a cause of action under section 1985(3) the law requires prejudice against a class qua class.”
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Platsky v. Kilpatrick
to state a cause of action under section 1985(3) the law requires prejudice against a class qua class.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. John D. Marbury and Louis E. Doherty, Jr.
if there is some justification for concentrating a surveillance on a particular place, as opposed to random investigation to discover criminal activity, that factor is weighed in the balance and contributes to justification for the surveillance.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Walker
See United States v. Allen, 675 F.2d 1373, 1381-82 (9th Cir. 1980) (observation using ordinary binoculars does not constitute a Fourth Amendment “search”), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981). *819 In United States v. Ellison, 462 F.3d 557 (6th Cir.2006), 3 the Court faced an assertion that running a license plate number through the LEIN system constituted a Fourth Amendment search.
cited
Cited "see"
Dickerson v. Leavitt Rentals
See Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 637 F.2d 743, 746-47 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 132 , 70 L.Ed.2d 111 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jimmy T. Barkley v. United States
See United States v. Follin, 979 F.2d 369, 372 (5th Cir.1992) ("[T]he clear intent of Congress was to include all those who 'participate in the operation of a gambling business, regardless [of] how minor their roles.' ") (quoting United States v. Tucker, 638 F.2d 1292, 1296 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 (1981)), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 3004 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gaston v. City of Toledo
See United States v. Allen, 675 F.2d 1373 , 1382 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981) (possibility of destruction of drugs plus other significant facts); cf. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 , 83 S.Ct. 1623 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963) (upheld search when officers suspected drugs could easily be destroyed and that Ker may have been expecting police as they had chased him earlier in the day).” In the leading case of People v. Gastelo (1967), 67 Cal.2d 586, 588 , 63 Cal.Rptr. 10, 12 , 432 P.2d 706, 708 , the court specifically rejected the “blanket rule…
cited
Cited "see"
Cronen v. County Storage Lot
See Cronen v. Nix, 611 S.W.2d 651, 653 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 132 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Arvil Hall v. Jon Shipley, Don Boles, Phillip Nall, and Sgt. Jack Mansfield
See United States v. Allen, 675 F.2d 1373, 1382 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981) (possibility of destruction of drugs plus other significant facts); cf. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 , 83 S.Ct. 1623 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963) (upheld search when officers suspected drugs could easily be destroyed and that Ker may have been expecting police as they had chased him earlier in the day).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. John J. Murray
(2×)
See United States v. Tucker, 638 F.2d 1292, 1297-98 (5th Cir. Unit A March), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 132 , 70 L.Ed.2d 111 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Daniel Richard Esparza
(2×)
See United States v. Allen, 675 F.2d 1373, 1384 (9th Cir.1980) (alleged participants in marijuana conspiracy had been paid $10,000 for a few hours of work moving heavy containers), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981); see also United States v. Humphrey, 759 F.2d 743, 750-51 (9th Cir.1985) (defendants present on boat which reeked of marijuana), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 917 , 107 S.Ct. 1371 , 94 L.Ed.2d 686 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eckman v. Centennial Savings Bank
See Cronen v. Nix, 611 S.W.2d 651, 653 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 132 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981) (trial court acted within its discretion in refusing to recognize another lawsuit as an excuse for plaintiff’s inattention to this lawsuit over a fourteen-month period).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Broadhurst
See United States v. Allen, 675 F.2d 1373, 1379, 1380 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Broadhurst
See United States v. Allen, 675 F.2d 1373, 1379, 1380 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 133 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Barr
See United States v. Allen, 633 F.2d 1282, 1290-91 (9th Cir. 1980), modified on other grounds, 675 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 133 (1981); People v. Vermouth, 116 Cal.Rptr. 675 (Ct.App. 1974); State v. Holbron, 648 P.2d 194, 197 (Hawaii 1982).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Arpin
See United States v. Tucker, 638 F.2d 1292, 1298-99 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S. Ct. 132 , 70 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Schultz
See also United States v. Tucker, 638 F.2d 1292 , *1330 1297-98 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 132 , 70 L.Ed.2d 111 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bell v. Mike Ford Realty Co.
Under Griffin , a plaintiff must demonstrate that there is “some racial ... invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.” Lucero, 954 F.2d at 630 (Kravitch, J., dissenting), quoting Griffin, 403 U.S. at 102 , 91 S.Ct. at 1798 ; Scott, 463 U.S. at 829 , 103 S.Ct. at 3356 , quoting Griffin, 403 U.S. at 102 , 91 S.Ct. at 1798 ; see also Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 637 F.2d 743, 748 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 132 , 70 L.Ed.2d 111 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McAllister v. Samuels
Compare Cronen v. Nix, 611 S.W.2d 651, 653 (Tex.Civ.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 132 , 70 L.Ed.2d 112 (1981) (no abuse of discretion to deny plaintiffs continuance) with Verkin, supra (abuse of discretion to deny defendant’s continuance when motion for summary judgment filed only fifty days after suit filed).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jews for Jesus, Inc., David A. Lipkowitz v. Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, Inc., Michael Miller, Robert Kaplan, Philip D. Abramowitz
The Supreme Court added the “class-based animus” requirement in order to prevent § 1985(3) from being broadly — and erroneously — interpreted as providing a federal remedy for “all tortious, conspiratorial interferences with the rights of others.” Griffin, 403 U.S. at 101 , 91 S.Ct. at 1797-98 ; see also Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 637 F.2d 743, 748 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 132 , 70 L.Ed.2d 111 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Guerrero-Guerrero
Yet, Beltran articulates the important point that, as a matter of “reason and common sense,” a jury may infer that conspirators engaged in conduct which, by its nature is kept a secret from outsiders, would reasonably not allow the presence of innocent bystanders in their midst while conducting a lengthy, illegal operation. 761 F.2d at 6 (characterizing holding of Smith, supra); see also United States v. Humphrey, 759 F.2d 743, 751 (9th Cir.1985) (“[Gjiven the scale of the undertaking and the necessity for secrecy, ‘no one would have been admitted to the enterprise who was not to be tr…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hector Mario Guerrero-Guerrero, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Diafanor Mosquera, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Jesus Idelfonso-Ortiz, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Juan De Dios Cabeza-Mejia, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Orlando Porras-Flores, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Dunoy Torres-Paternina, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Arnulfo Valencia-Aspirilla, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Felix Chica-Castano, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Cresenciano Vazquez-Consuegra, United States v. Jane Doe, A/K/A Julie Guerrero-Soto, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Rafael Perez, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Silvio Ferrin-Molineros, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Heriberto Enrique Mendibil-Manjarrez, United States v. John Doe, A/K/A Juan Alejandro-Sisa
Yet, Beltran articulates the important point that, as a matter of "reason and common sense," a jury may infer that 23 conspirators engaged in conduct which, by its nature is kept a secret from outsiders, would reasonably not allow the presence of innocent bystanders in their midst while conducting a lengthy, illegal operation. 24 761 F.2d at 6 (characterizing holding of Smith, supra); see also United States v. Humphrey, 759 F.2d 743, 751 (9th Cir.1985) ("[G]iven the scale of the undertaking and the necessity for secrecy, 'no one would have been admitted to the enterprise who was not to be trus…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Clark v. United States
See, e.g., Clark v. United States, 226 Ct.Cl. 658 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 (1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Conner
v.
Virginia
v.
Virginia
No. 80-2105.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 5, 1981.
Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (1) · E.D. New York (1)
Sup. Ct. Va. Cer-tiorari denied.