green
Positive treatment
4.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Mikel Bornfield
See United States v. Zang, 703 F.2d 1186, 1196 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 828 , 104 S.Ct. 103 , 78 L.Ed.2d 107 (1983). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Oladeinde v. City of Birmingham
After the jury reaches its verdict the court then may decide “the propriety of equitable relief based on the facts as found by the jury. ” Id. at 977 (emphasis in original); accord Best v. Boswell, 696 F.2d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 828 , 104.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Mark A. Harris
See United States v. Zang, 703 F.2d 1186, 1191 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied Porter v. United States, 464 U.S. 828 , 104 S.Ct. 103 , 78 L.Ed.2d 107 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. John v. Capozzi
Considering the first possibility, some Courts of Appeals have suggested or held that if the government grants use immunity to its witnesses but refuses to offer immunity to potential defense witnesses, with the deliberate intention of distorting the judicial fact finding process, a defendant’s right to due process may have been violated. 9 United States v. Pennell, 737 F.2d 521, 526 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1158 , 105 S.Ct. 906 , 83 L.Ed.2d 921 (1985); see United States v. Franz, 697 F.2d 188, 191 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 828 , 104 S.Ct. 104 , 78 L.Ed.2d 107 (1983); Gove…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Anthony F. Vap
See United States v. Zang, 703 F.2d 1186, 1191 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 828 , 104 S.Ct. 103 , 78 L.Ed.2d 107 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Haskins v. City Of Boaz
After the jury reaches its verdict the court then may decide "the propriety of equitable relief based on the facts as found by the jury." Id. at 977 (emphasis in original); accord Best v. Boswell, 696 F.2d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 828 , 104 S.Ct. 103 , 78 L.Ed.2d 107 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Haskins v. City of Boaz
After the jury reaches its verdict the court then may decide “the propriety of equitable relief based on the facts as found by the jury.” Id. at 977 (emphasis in original); accord Best v. Boswell, 696 F.2d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 828 , 104 S.Ct. 103 , 78.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ralph H. Washington
See United States v. Zang, 703 F.2d 1186, 1195 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 828 , 104 S.Ct. 103 , 78 L.Ed.2d 107 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Henderson
See United States v. Zang, 703 F.2d 1186 (10th Cir.1982), cert. den. 464 U.S. 828 , 104 *256 S.Ct. 103, 78 L.Ed.2d 107 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ralph H. Washington
See United States v. Zang, 703 F.2d 1186, 1195 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 828 , 104 S.Ct. 103 , 78 L.Ed.2d 107 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co.
See, e.g., Fellows v. Universal Restaurants, Inc., 701 F.2d 447, 450 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 828 , 104 S.Ct. 102 , 78 L.Ed.2d 106 (1983); Evans v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., 696 F.2d 925, 928 (11th Cir.1983); Chisholm v. United States Postal Serv., 665 F.2d 482 , 491 (4th Cir.1981); Kirkland v. Buffalo Bd. of Educ., 622 F.2d 1066, 1068 (2d Cir.1980); Satz v. ITT Fin.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
50 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1846, 51 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,378 Jean Schnellbaecher and Marcia Brandt v. Baskin Clothing Company and Hartmarx Specialty Stores, Inc.
See, e.g., Fellows v. Universal Restaurants, Inc., 701 F.2d 447, 450 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 828 , 104 S.Ct. 102 , 78 L.Ed.2d 106 (1983); Evans v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., 696 F.2d 925, 928 (11th Cir.1983); Chisholm v. United States Postal Serv., 665 F.2d 482 , 491 (4th Cir.1981); Kirkland v. Buffalo Bd. of Educ., 622 F.2d 1066, 1068 (2d Cir.1980); Satz v. ITT Fin.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ofchinick
Compare United States v. Zang, 703 F.2d 1186, 1195 (10th Cir.1982) (holding that interest subject to forfeiture pursuant to Sec. 1963(a)(1) in a Sec. 1962(a) case is "any interest in an enterprise acquired or maintained through racketeering income" (emphasis added)), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 828 , 104 S.Ct. 103 , 78 L.Ed.2d 107 (1983), with Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 , 104 S.Ct. 296 , 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983) (construing Sec. 1963(a)(1) to reach profits and proceeds acquired in violation of Sec. 1962(c) without regard to whether they were interests in the enterprise).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ofchinick
Compare United States v. Zang, 703 F.2d 1186, 1195 (10th Cir.1982) (holding that interest subject to forfeiture pursuant to § 1963(a)(1) in a § 1962(a) case is “any interest in an enterprise acquired or maintained through racketeering income” (emphasis added)), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 828 , 104 S.Ct. 103 , 78 L.Ed.2d 107 (1983), with Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 , 104 S.Ct. 296 , 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983) (construing § 1963(a)(1) to reach profits and proceeds acquired in violation of § 1962(c) without regard to whether they were interests in the enterprise).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bissette
v.
South Carolina
v.
South Carolina
No. 82-2090.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 1983.
Published
Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.