green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
9.3 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1984 ·
…proof that no first sale had occurred was not required because the government established that the tapes were pirated
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Vara v. Sharp
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
it would be unsound to invoke the exclusionary rule on the assumption that officers of one federal agency have such a strong motivating interest in all federal law enforcement concerns that broad application of the rule will achieve significant marginal deterrence
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jesus Alberto Vara v. John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas And Kay Bailey Hutchison, State Treasurer of the State of Texas
it would be unsound to invoke the exclusionary rule on the assumption that officers of one federal agency have such a strong motivating interest in all federal law enforcement concerns that broad application of the rule will achieve significant marginal deterrence.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Larry Drum, John C. McCulloch Ferrol \Bud\" McKinney Curtis R. Snipes
proof that no first sale had occurred was not required because the government established that the tapes were pirated
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Drum
(2×)
proof that no first sale had occurred was not required because the government established that the tapes were pirated
discussed
Cited "see"
Electro-Miniatures Corp. v. Wendon Company, Inc. And Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Inc., Westinghouse Electric Corp., Inc
(2×)
See Davis v. United States Steel Supply, Division of United States Steel Corp., 688 F.2d 166 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
McNASBY v. CROWN CORK AND SEAL CO., INC.
(2×)
See Davis v. United States Steel Supply, 688 F.2d 166, 187 (3d Cir.1982) (Gibbons, J., dissenting) (noting that the Court "could not instruct in [Kremer ] on the law of Pennsylvania. [I]t dealt, rather with a specific provision in the New York Human Rights Law."), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
McNasby v. Crown Cork & Seal Co.
(2×)
See Davis v. United States Steel Supply, 688 F.2d 166, 187 (3d Cir.1982) (Gibbons, J., dissenting) (noting that the Court “could not instruct in [Kremer] on the law of Pennsylvania. [I]t dealt, rather with a specific provision in the New York Human Rights Law.”), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Crosley v. Agway, Inc.
(2×)
See Davis v. United States Steel Supply, 688 F.2d 166 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983).
examined
Cited "see"
Nos. 84-1478, 84-1509
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Davis v. United States Steel Supply, 581 F.2d 335, 339 (3d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983); Meyers.
examined
Cited "see"
Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co.
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Davis v. United States Steel Supply, 581 F.2d 335, 339 (3d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983); Meyers .
discussed
Cited "see"
Eduardo P. TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Defendant-Appellee
(2×)
See Davis v. United States Steel Supply, 688 F.2d 166, 178 (3d Cir.1982) (en banc) (Garth, J., concurring) (“all of those views are now ‘water under the bridge’ ”), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983) (Davis).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ollarek v. United States
(2×)
Accord, Tirado v. Commissioner, 689 F.2d 307 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983); Velasco v. IRS, 80-2 U.S.T.C.
examined
Cited "see"
Garrett v. Lehman
(3×)
See Tirado v. CIR, 689 F.2d 307 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983) (court declined to extend exclusionary rule to civil proceedings) 10 The Court reasoned that the likelihood of benefit was lessened by the presence of several factors including available "alternative remedies" in federal court, id. 104 S.Ct. at 3488.
cited
Cited "see"
Garrett v. Lehman
See Tirado v. CIR, 689 F.2d 307 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. ios, 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983) (court declined to extend exclusionary rule to civil proceedings). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Kent A. Adamson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(2×)
See Tirado v. Commissioner, 689 F.2d 307 , 309 & n. 2 (2d Cir.1982), cert, denied, 460 U.S. 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bailey, Jo Ellen v. Ness, J. Christian, Individually Garber, Daniel, Individually and Northern Regional Police Dept
(2×)
See Davis v. United States Steel Supply, 688 F.2d 166, 170 (3d Cir.1982) (in banc), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Jones v. Waters
See generally Davis v. United States Steel Co., 688 F.2d 166 (3d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied,-U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Allegheny International, Inc. v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp.
(2×)
Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466 , 102 S.Ct. 1883, 1889 , 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1738 ) (footnote omitted); see also Davis v. United States Steel Supply, 688 F.2d 166, 170 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Allegheny Intern., Inc. v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp.
(2×)
Sec. 1738 ) (footnote omitted); see also Davis v. United States Steel Supply, 688 F.2d 166, 170 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
48 Fair empl.prac.cas. 262, 48 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,395 Roger P. Kelley, in 87-3530 v. Tyk Refractories Company, Formerly Tyk Swank Refractories Company. Roger P. Kelley v. Tyk Refractories Company, Formerly Tyk Swank Refractories Company. Appeal of Tyk Refractories Company, Inc
(2×)
Co. v. Williams, 463 Pa. 567, 574 , 345 A.2d 664, 668 (1975) (citation omitted) (cited with approval in Odgers v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 514 Pa. 378, 389 , 525 A.2d 359, 364 (1987)); see also Davis v. United States Steel Supply, 688 F.2d 166 , 173 n. 9 (3d Cir.1982) (en banc) (dictum citing Safeguard as stating Pennsylvania collateral estoppel standard), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983). 27 Kelley concedes that there was a final judgment on the merits of his eligibility for unemployment compensation, and that he was a party t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kelley v. TYK Refractories Co.
(2×)
Co. v. Williams, 463 Pa. 567, 574 , 345 A.2d 664, 668 (1975) (citation omitted) (cited with approval in Odgers v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 514 Pa. 378, 389 , 525 A.2d 359, 364 (1987)); see also Davis v. United States Steel Supply, 688 F.2d 166 , 173 n. 9 (3d Cir.1982) (en banc) (dictum citing Safeguard as stating Pennsylvania collateral estoppel standard), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 1256 , 75 L.Ed.2d 484 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Westchester
Auth., 25 AD2d 225 , revd on other grounds 19 NY2d 418 ; see also, Tirado v Commissioner of Internal Revenue Serv., 689 F2d 307, cert denied 460 US 1014 ; Matter of Mancini v Codd, supra, at pp 31-32).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Davis
v.
United States Steel Supply, Division of United States Steel Corp.
v.
United States Steel Supply, Division of United States Steel Corp.
No. 82-5774.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 28, 1983.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Texas (2)
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.