green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.4 score
“the case-or-controversy doctrines state fundamental limits on federal judicial power in our system of government.”
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cruz v. Bowen
the case-or-controversy doctrines state fundamental limits on federal judicial power in our system of government.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. McNutt
See United States v. Leon, 468 US 897, 915 , 104 S Ct 3405 , 82 L Ed 2d 677 , reh’g den, 468 US 1250 (1984) (stating that “bare conclusio[n]” of wrongdoing is insufficient to establish probable cause).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Bottom
See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3430 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 , reh. denied 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 52 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Beard
See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 920-21 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), reh’g denied, 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 52 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Wolfe
See id. at 640 (citing U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 920-21 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), reh’g denied, 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 52 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984)).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Wolfe
See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 920-21 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), reh’g denied, 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 52 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Clark
See infra page 1327 for discussion of Commonwealth v. Edmunds . [6] The exclusionary rule is "a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect." United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906 , 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3412 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (citing United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 , 94 S.Ct. 613, 620 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974)), reh'g denied, 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 52 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Green
See, United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), reh. den., 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 52 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 . 10 .
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Dunn
We cannot fault the Thomas court’s postulation, shared by the dissent here, that a person’s expectation of privacy is strongest when it concerns activities inside his dwelling (see, United States v Knotts, 460 US 276, 282, 285 ; United States v Taborda, 635 F2d 131 [2d Cir]; see generally, United States v Karo, 468 US 705 , reh denied 468 US 1250 ; Payton v New York, 445 US 573, 589-590 ; United States v United States Dist.
cited
Cited "see"
McGrath v. Department of Housing & Urban Development
See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 , 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3324 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984), reh’g denied, 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 51 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Clapsaddle v. State
See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 , reh'g. denied, 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 52 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca8 1988
See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 764 , 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3331 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (discussing effect of summary affirmance), reh'g denied, 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 51 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984); Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 119 , 104 S.Ct. 900, 918 , 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pulido v. Bennett
See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 764 , 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3331 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (discussing effect of summary affirmance), reh’g denied, 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 51 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984); Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 119 , 104 S.Ct. 900, 918 , 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Leonard
See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 82 L.Ed. 2d 677 , reh. denied, 468 U.S. 1250 , 82 L.Ed. 2d 942 (1984) (upholding admission of evidence seized in reasonable reliance on invalid warrant).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jessup
See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 52 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ayala
See generally, United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 rehearing denied, 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 52 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984); but cf., United States v. Johnson, 21 M.J. 553, 555 (A.F.C.M.R.1985) ("We find the ‘good faith’ exception does not apply to trials by courts-martial governed by the Military Rules of Evidence____”), cert. for review filed, 21 M.J. 300 (C.M.A.1985) (the Leon issue is included in this certification). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Society of Plastics Industry, Inc. v. County of Suffolk
The standing requirement in Federal actions has been grounded in the Federal constitutional requirement of a case or controversy (US Const, art III, § 2, cl 1; see, e.g., Allen v Wright, 468 US 737, 750-752 , reh denied 468 US 1250 ; Valley Forge Coll. v Americans United, 454 US, at 471-474 , supra), a requirement that has no analogue in the State Constitution.
Atkins, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare
v.
Parker and Parker v. Block, Secretary of Agriculture
v.
Parker and Parker v. Block, Secretary of Agriculture
No. 83-1660; No. 83-6381.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Sep 18, 1984.
Published
Citer courts: N.D. California (1)
C. A. 1st Cir. [Certiorari granted, 467 U. S. 1250.] Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted.