green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
9.0 score
“the equal protection lause was not intended to address government action, however arbitrary, if it is directed solely at an individual.”
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
FREEMAN v. HARRIS
the equal protection lause was not intended to address government action, however arbitrary, if it is directed solely at an individual.
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. DeJesus
See Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 77 (1983), cert, denied, 465 U.S. 1032 (1984) (best evidence rule not applicable to photographs). 6 Our view in this regard is consistent with that of other jurisdictions that have considered the question.
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Durand
See Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 77 (1983), cert, denied, 465 U.S. 1032 (1984), S.C., 446 Mass. 785 (2006); Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 641, 646 (2002) (“Photographs usually are authenticated directly through competent testimony that the scene they show is a fair and accurate representation of something the witness actually saw”).
cited
Cited "see"
Renzi v. Paredes
See Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 77 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032 (1984) (“the best evidence rule does not apply to photographs”).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Stewart
See Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 74-75 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032 (1984), S.C., 446 Mass. 785 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Raedy
See Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 71 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032 (1984); Commonwealth v. Warren, 403 Mass. 137, 140-141 (1988); Commonwealth v. Martinez, 431 Mass. 168 , 176 n.6 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Figueroa
See Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 77 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032 (1984); Commonwealth v. Ames, 410 Mass. 603 , 605 n.3 (1991); Liacos, Massachusetts Evidence § 11.13.1, at 728 (7th ed. 1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Daniels
An expert “may reserve judgment about his draft [or impressions] until he reviews [the report] in final, signifying his approval only when he affixes his signature to the completed document.” United States v. Thomas, 97 F.3d 1499, 1502 (D.C.Cir.1996); see United States v. Hinton, 719 F.2d 711, 722 (4th Cir.1983) (“investigative notes of a government agent, made in the course of interviewing witnesses, which are later incorporated in the agent’s formal 302 report, are not statements within the meaning of Section 3500(e)(1)”), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032 , 104 S.Ct. 1300 , 79 L.Ed.2d 6…
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Best
See Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 77-78 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032 (1984) (judge did not abuse discretion in excluding photographs where there was no testimony that they accurately represented “the condition of the lighting at the time of the murder”).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Burns
See Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 73 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032 (1984); Commonwealth v. Ashley, 427 Mass. 620, 624-625 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Ashley
See Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 73-74 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032 (1984) (jury may infer motive from reasonable inferences); Commonwealth v. Montecalvo, 367 Mass. 46, 54 (1975) (“It is enough if the inferences drawn from the circumstances be reasonable and possible”).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mannarino
See United States v. Hinton, 719 F.2d 711, 717-19 (4th Cir.1983), cert, den., 465 U.S. 1032 , 104 S.Ct. 1300 , 79 L.Ed.2d 699 (1984); compare United States v. Pollock, 417 F.Supp. 1332 , 1343 and n. 27 (D.Mass.1976) (exceptional case in which agent’s bad faith destruction of his own rough notes violates due process and requires dismissal of indictment).
discussed
Cited "see"
Timmons v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
See Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 78 (1983) (photography expert unqualified to testify on the subject of human perception), cert, denied, 465 U.S. 1032 (1984); Commonwealth v. Seit, 373 Mass. 83, 91-92 (1977) (ballis *650 tician unqualified to testify in area of physiology or pathology); Carlson v. Holden, 358 Mass. 22, 25-26 (1970) (expert qualified as civil engineer, land surveyor, and sanitary engineer unqualified on subject of development of acreage into building lots); Lee Lime Corp. v. Massachusetts Turnpike Auth., 337 Mass. .433, 436-437 (1958) (real estate expert unqualified …
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Kater
See Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 71 (1983), cert, denied, 465 U.S. 1032 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
James Gardner v. Joseph Ponte
See Hollin v. Sowders, 710 F.2d 264, 266 (6th Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 465 U.S. 1032 , 104 S.Ct. 1300 , 79 L.Ed.2d 699 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc. v. Hallowell, Penrose Van Buskirk, Jr., Max A. Block, John Apple, John Sharman, Euclid C
(2×)
See Price v. Cohen, 715 F.2d 87, 92, 94 (3d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032 , 104 S.Ct. 1300 , 79 L.Ed.2d 700 (1984); Jamieson v. Robinson, 641 F.2d 138, 142 (3d Cir.1981). 20 Empire contends that the federal defendants justified the indemnity regulations by expressing concern about the economic harm to poultry owners whose flocks were destroyed but, at the same time refused reimbursement to other flock owners who were also economically harmed by the regulations.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Evans
See United States v. Hinton, 719 F.2d 711 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032 , 104 S.Ct. 1300 , 79 L.Ed.2d 699 (1984); State v. Flesher, 286 N.W.2d 215 (Iowa 1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Germain
See Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 73 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Daye
(2×)
Id.; see id. at 86-87 & n.6 (Liacos, J., dissenting).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pollock v. City of Ocean City
Svcs., 716 F.2d 1167, 1171 (7th Cir.1983); see also Price v. Cohen, 715 F.2d 87, 91 (3d Cir.1983) (“To establish a violation of the equal protection clause, a plaintiff must show that the allegedly offensive categorization invidiously discriminates against the disfavored group.”), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032 , 104 S.Ct. 1300 , 79 L.Ed.2d 700 (1984); Murray v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Pub.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc., D/B/A Marva Maid Dairy
Here, to qualify as a Jencks Act statement, Elliott "must have signed, read, or heard the entire statement read." United States v. Pierce, 893 F.2d 669 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing United States v. Hogan, 763 F.2d 697, 704 (5th Cir. 1985)); See also, United States v. Hinton, 719 F.2d 711, 715 (4th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032 (1984) (government notes of a witness' statements do not constitute a Jencks Act "statement" "unless it reflects the witness' own words fully and without distortion," and is coupled with "a'finding of unambiguous and specific approval' of specific notes"). 55 On cro…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Weichell
v.
Massachusetts
v.
Massachusetts
No. 83-5877.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 21, 1984.
Published
Citer courts: D. New Jersey (1)
Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.