green
Positive treatment
6.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Gibbs, Stephen A/K/A \Jake
(2×)
But see United States v. Bulman, 667 F.2d 1374, 1377-79 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2305 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982) (adopting Fifth Circuit precedent of "substantial independent evidence" test); United States v. Slade, 627 F.2d 293, 307 (D.C.Cir.1980) (same test); United States v. James, 590 F.2d 575 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (same test), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917 , 99 S.Ct. 2836 , 61 L.Ed.2d 283 (1979) 12 In Trotter, this court refused to accept the Government's suggestion that a less rigorous standard requiring only "prima facie proof" was appropriate in light of United St…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Huddleston
That contention is not properly before us. " Where, as here, the defendant fails to move to reopen a suppression hearing, he or she may not rely upon the trial testimony to challenge the suppression ruling' " ( People v Mosca , 294 AD2d 938, 939 [4th Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 538 [2002]; see People v Gonzalez , 55 NY2d 720, 721-722 [1981], rearg denied 55 NY2d 1038 [1982], cert denied 456 US 1010 [1982]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Wellington
Moreover, “the propriety of the denial of the defendant’s suppression motion must be determined based upon the evidence before the suppression court” (People v Fleming, 65 AD3d at 703-704 ; see People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 720, 722 [1981], cert denied 456 US 1010 [1982]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Crosby
“Where, as here, the defendant fails to move to reopen a suppression hearing, he or she may not rely upon the trial testimony to challenge the suppression ruling” (People v Gold, 249 AD2d 414, 415 [1998]; see People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 720 [1981], cert denied 456 US 1010 [1982]; People v Brown, 11 AD3d 474 [2004]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Brown
“Where, as here, the defendant fails to move to reopen a suppression hearing, he or she may not rely upon the trial testimony to challenge the suppression ruling” (People v Gold, 249 AD2d 414, 415 [1998]; see People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 720 [1981], cert denied 456 US 1010 [1982]; People v Wells, 288 AD2d 408 [2001]).
cited
Cited "see"
Beckwith v. Anderson
See United States v. Townley, 665 F.2d 579 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2305 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Labrache v. American Maritime Officers Pension Plan
See Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032, 1034 (11th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2303 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1306 (1982). *1338 BACKGROUND After exhaustion of an administrative remedy, by appealing his ease before a subcommittee of the Board of Trustees of AMO, the plaintiff presented the instant cause of action.
cited
Cited "see"
TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS HOSPITALS, INC. v. Shalala
See Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032,1034 (11th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2303 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1306 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. 302 Cases, 321 Cases, & 420 Cases, More or Less, of Frozen Shrimp, Currently Located at Americold Corp.
See Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032, 1034 (11th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2303 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1306 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Clark v. BH Holland Co., Inc.
See Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032, 1033 (11th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2303 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1306 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gomez
See United States v. Bulman, 667 F.2d 1374 & n. 7 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2305 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); see also Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(1).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gerardo Antonio Gomez, A/K/A Jerry Gomez, United States of America v. Mickey Crocker, United States of America v. Kelly Lynn Hanlon, A/K/A Leslie Ann Warren
See United States v. Bulman, 667 F.2d 1374 & n. 7 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2305 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); see also Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(1). 13 We hold that the court did not commit reversible error in admitting Bradshaw's out-of-court declarations without making additional findings on the record, at the close of the testimony, based on a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. 2. 14 Sufficiency of the evidence regarding Gomez' connection to 15 the conspiracy 16 Gomez also argues that the Government did not present sufficient independent evidence to connect him to th…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. McFadden
Thus, the denial of the branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement was not erroneous and must be sustained on appeal (see, People v Johnson, 105 AD2d 805 ; see, People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 720 , cert denied 456 US 1010 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Ramlall
As defense counsel never raised an objection to the admissibility of certain tape-recorded conversations to which the defendant was not a party, any issue of law as to the propriety of their admission in evidence has not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; see, People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 720 , cert denied 456 US 1010 ).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Moreno L. Keplinger, Paul L. Wright, and James B. Plank
See United States v. Townley, 665 F.2d 579, 585 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2305 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); United States v. Allen, 554 F.2d at 410 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Esperanza
Moreover, it has been previously held that the Appellate Division "may not make its own finding of an independent source based upon trial testimony" ( People v James , 67 NY2d 662, 664 [1986]; see also People v Gonzalez , 55 NY2d 720, 721-722 [1981], cert denied 456 US 1010 [1982]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Esperanza
Moreover, it has been previously held that the Appellate Division "may not make its own finding of an independent source based upon trial testimony" ( People v James , 67 NY2d 662, 664 [1986]; see also People v Gonzalez , 55 NY2d 720, 721-722 [1981], cert denied 456 US 1010 [1982]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Garcia-Cabrera v. Cohen
See Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 56(c); see also Peppers v. Coates, 887 F.2d 1493 (11th Cir.1989) (“If the party’s response consists of nothing more than a repetition of his conclusory allegations, the district court must enter summary judgment in the moving party’s favor”) (citing Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032, 1034 (11th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2303 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1306 (1982)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. A. Guy Crouch, III and Michael J. Frye
See, e.g., United States v. Townley, 665 F.2d 579 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2305 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); United States v. Miller, 20 F.3d 926 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 226 , 130 L.Ed.2d 152 (1994); Howell; Moran. .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Spence v. State
See also U.S. v. Townley, 665 F.2d 579, 582 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2305 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982) (Held, delay against defendant was only partly for investigative reasons; therefore, second prong of the claim, prejudice to defendant, was required to be proven.) It was error for the trial judge in this cause not to have considered the testimony which was elicited at the remand hearing, and it was also error for the trial judge not to have allowed full discovery of all non-privileged material both at the initial hearing and on remand.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Frank Landry v. Air Line Pilots Association International Afl-Cio, Taca Airlines, S.A. And Charles J. Huttinger
(2×)
McCormack, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations 4-46--4-47 (Knowles Law Book Publishing, Inc. 1989) 85 Id. at 4-47, citing, United States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108, 121 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 913 , 103 S.Ct. 1891 , 77 L.Ed.2d 282 (1983) ("The prohibition against schemes or artifices to defraud is properly interpreted to be independent of the clause 'for obtaining money or property.' ") (Citations omitted); see also United States v. Townley, 665 F.2d 579, 585 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2305 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); McLendon v. Continental Group, I…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Williard
See also United States v. Burns, 667 F.2d 781, 783 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2304 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1306 (1982) (holding defendant was released under the Bail Reform Act despite fact terms of release were ill defined).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Johnny Dickerson v. State of Louisiana
Compare United States v. Durnin, 632 F.2d 1297, 1299 (5th Cir. Unit A 1980) (requiring the defendant to show both actual prejudice and intentional tactical delay in order to succeed on a due process claim), with United States v. Brand, 556 F.2d 1312 , 1317 n. 7 (5th Cir.1977) (rejecting this notion and interpreting Lovasco to require "a sensitive balancing of the government's need for an investigative delay ... against the prejudice asserted by the defendant.”), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063 , 98 S.Ct. 1237 , 55 L.Ed.2d 663 (1978) and United States v. Townley, 665 F.2d 579, 582 (5th Cir.) (fol…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. James Allen Standridge
See, e.g., United States v. Bulman, 667 F.2d 1374 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied sub nom., Howard v. United *1037 States, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2305 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Shippens
It is, however, improper for an appellate court to make its own finding of an independent source based upon trial testimony (see, People v James, 67 NY2d 662, 664 ; People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408, 417 ; see also, People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 720, 721-722 , cert denied 456 US 1010 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Davis BALLARD, Defendant-Appellant
Id. at 1119 (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Townley, 665 F.2d 579, 581 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2305 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); United States v. Hendricks, 661 F.2d 38, 40 (5th Cir.1980); cf. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101, 116 (1972). 19 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Roy Lee Burke
See also United States v. Bulman, 667 F.2d 1374 , 1381 n. 9 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2305 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Eugene Frankel
See also United States v. Townley, 665 F.2d 579, 585 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2305 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); United States v. Bruce, 488 F.2d 1224, 1229 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 825 , 95 S.Ct. 41 , 42 L.Ed.2d 48 (1974); Silverman v. United States, 213 F.2d 405, 407 (5th Cir.1954); Fournier v. United States, 58 F.2d 3, 5 (7th Cir.1932).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Paul W. Granville
See, e.g., United States v. Humphrey, 670 F.2d 153, 155 (11th Cir.) (entrapment), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2305 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hubert Jerome Yonn, Gary Carl Weeks, Hugo Sanes-Saavedra
See, e.g., United States v. Bulman, 667 F.2d 1374, 1379 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010 , 102 S.Ct. 2305 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Morris
v.
Ross
v.
Ross
No. 81-6517.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 1, 1982.
Published
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.