green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
8.7 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Joseph v. Coyle
generally, we have viewed the failure to ask for a continuance as an indication that defense counsel was himself satisfied he had sufficient opportunity to use the evidence advantageously.
discussed
Cited "see"
Signature Pharmacy, Inc. vs Alex Wright
See United States v. Betancourt, 734 F.2d 750, 754-55 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 440 , 83 L.Ed.2d 365 (1984) (stating that a warrant’s description need not contain elaborate specificity; it is sufficiently particular when it enables the searcher to reasonably ascertain and identify the things authorized to be seized).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Bunger
(2×)
See United States v. Betancourt, 734 F.2d 750, 757 (11th Cir.1984) (Rule 403 is an `extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly since it permits the trial court to exclude concededly probative evidence' and `in criminal trials relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial'), reh'g denied, 740 F.2d 979 (11th Cir.1984), and cert. denied sub nom., Gerwitz v. United States, 469 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 440 , 83 L.Ed.2d 365 (1984); United States v. Jamil, 707 F.2d 638, 642 (2d Cir.1983) (trial judge must take special care to use Rule 403 sparingly); United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 63…
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. Patel
See United States v. Levy, 741 F.2d 915, 924 (7th Cir.) (failure to object to testimony at trial limits review to the identifica *993 tion of a plain error), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 440 , 83 L.Ed.2d 366 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Scott Payne
(2×)
See United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373, 1383 (6th Cir.) (stating this rule with respect to probation and noting the dual goals of probation of rehabilitating the defendant and protecting the public), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 440 , 83 L.Ed.2d 366 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Zendell Ray Adams
United States v. Bingham, 10 F.3d 404, 405 (7th Cir.1993); United States v. Sanzo, 831 F.2d 671, 672 (6th Cir.1987); see United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373, 1382 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 (1984); Fed.R.App.P. 4(b).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ralph Galaviz, Jose Galaviz
United States v. Bingham, 10 F.3d 404, 405 (7th Cir.1993); United States v. Sanzo, 831 F.2d 671, 672 (6th Cir.1987); see United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373, 1382 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 (1984); Fed.R.App.P. 4(b).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. William Arthur Burchett
See United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373, 1382 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 (1984). 7 As to Burchett's motion for declaratory relief, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Daniel Blue
See United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373, 1377 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles E. Coleman
See United States v. Holloway, 731 F.2d 378, 381 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 440 , 83 L.Ed.2d 366 (1984) ("[W]e must view the evidence and all the reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the government.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Morris Lee Pope, A/K/A Maurice Pope
See United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373 , 1377 & n. 5 (6th Cir.) ("The prejudicial impact of the evidence was blunted by a properly worded limiting instruction."), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 (1984); J.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wallace E. Ehrhart v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
See generally section XVIII of the Practitioner’s Handbook for Appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. "[T]he shotgun inclusion of issues may be the basis of hitting the target with something but still runs the risk of obscuring the significant issues by dilution.” United States v. Levy, 741 F.2d 915, 924 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 440 , 83 L.Ed.2d 366 (1984). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Mills v. Graves
See People of the Territory of Guam v. Okada, 694 F.2d 565 , 570 n. 8 (9th Cir.1982), modified, 715 F.2d 1347 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 441 , 83 L.Ed.2d 367 (1984) 2 There is nothing in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), cited by the Millses, which could be read to set forth the requisites of a facially valid warrant 3 This particular complaint arises from Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), which predates the Court's present "totality of the circumstances" test and has been overruled on other …
cited
Cited "see"
Mills v. Graves
See People of the Territory of Guam v. Okada, 694 F.2d 565 , 570 n. 8 (9th Cir.1982), modified, 715 F.2d 1347 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 441 , 83 L.Ed.2d 367 (1984). .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Peter Stewart and Winsome Andrea Johnson
Sec. 408 (g)(2) (emphasis added); see United States v. Darrell, 828 F.2d 644 (10th Cir.1987). 58 The standard of review regarding a district court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal may be found in United States v. Holloway, 731 F.2d 378 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 (1984), wherein this court stated: 59 In deciding whether evidence is sufficient to withstand a motion for an acquittal, we must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the government.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Arthur W. Byrd
See United States v. Holloway, 731 F.2d 378, 381 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 (1984); United States v. Enright, 579 F.2d 980, 986 (6th Cir.1978). 6 The decision whether to admit such hearsay will not be reversed absent a showing of abuse of discretion.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael C. Pennyman
See United States v. Holloway, 731 F.2d 378, 381 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 440 , 83 L.Ed.2d 366 (1984) (“[W]e must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the government.
discussed
Cited "see"
Extraterritorial Effect of the Posse Comitatus Act
See United States v. Del Prado-Montero, 740 F.2d 113 (1st Cir.), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 1021 (1984); United States v. Roberts, 779 F.2d 565 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 839 (1986); United States v. Yunis, 681 F. Supp. 891 (D.D.C. 1988), affd, 924 F.2d 1086 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Miller
See United States v. Del Prado-Montero, 740 F.2d 113, 115 (1st Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 441 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 366 (1984); 469 U.S. 1042 , 105 S.Ct. 527 , 83 L.Ed.2d 415 (1984); 469 U.S. 1164 , 105 S.Ct. 924 , 83 L.Ed.2d 936 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. George Kelley
See United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373, 1377 (6th Cir.) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 440 , 83 L.Ed.2d 366 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kakaygeesick v. Salazar
Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 5 , 124 S.Ct. 1 , 157 L.Ed.2d 1 (2003); see also, Gagan v. American Cablevision, Inc., 77 F.3d 951, 955 (7th Cir.1996) ("Losers in a trial can go hunting for relief on appeal with a rifle or a shotgun,” and "[t]he rifle is better,” "[a]s * * * the shotgun approach may hit the target with something but it runs the risk of obscuring significant issues by dilution.”), citing United States v. Levy, 741 F.2d 915, 924 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 440 , 83 L.Ed.2d 366 (1984). 16 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kostel v. Schwartz
(2×)
Hofmeyer, A Relaxed Standard of Proof for Rule kOlpfb) Evidence: United States v. Huddleston, 6 Cooley L.Rev. 79 (1989))); see also Id. ¶ 15 (citing United States v. Betancourt, 734 F.2d 750, 757 (11th Cir.1984) (Rule 403 is an “extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly since it permits the trial court to exclude concededly probative evidence”), reh’g denied, 740 F.2d 979 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, Gerwitz v. United States, 469 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 440 , 83 L.Ed.2d 365 (1984)). .. [¶ 29.] Out of the jury’s presence, trial counsel argued the merits of the inclusion…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bobby McGory
See also United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373, 1379 (6th Cir.) (holding that "errors in the exclusion of evidence may be cured by the admission of other evidence of substantially the same nature."), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 (1984). 12 In Crane v. Sowders, 889 F.2d 715 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1094 (1990), we once again considered the exclusion of a defendant's proffered evidence.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Vijay Parekh
See also United States v. Levy, 741 F.2d 915, 921-22 (7th Cir.) ("An actual desire to inflict harm on the bank is not required.”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 440 , 83 L.Ed.2d 366 (1984); United States v. Krepps, 605 F.2d 101, 104 (3d Cir.1979); United States v. Larson, 581 F.2d 664, 667 (7th Cir.1978); United States v. Killian, 541 F.2d 1156, 1159-60 (5th Cir.1976); United States v. Schmidt, 471 F.2d 385, 386 (3d Cir.1972) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Carl Edward Lockhart, A/K/A Cateyes Lockhart
See also United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373, 1381 (6th Cir.) (indicating that divulging the substance of the defendant's oral statements will suffice), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 (1984). 26 The defendant also claims that the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Michael Cohl (86-1127), Charles Gregory, Sr. (86-1128), Sanford Cohl (86-1129)
See, e.g., United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 (1984). 4 Nor is the issue raised by all defendants, that the district court erred in vacating its sua sponte order which had the effect of granting a new trial, well-taken.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wilson, dba Holly Grove Estates
v.
Wilson
v.
Wilson
No. 84-5482.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 13, 1984.
Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (1)
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.