green
Positive treatment
5.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State Of Iowa Vs. Errol Edward Decker
See Miller v. Dugger, 838 F.2d 1530, 1542 (11th Cir. 1988) (“The psychiatrist based his diagnosis not just on Cape’s demeanor and the sound of Cape’s voice, but on the contents and substance of Cape’s answers to his questions, ‘thus making Cape’s communications to him testimonial in nature.’ ” (quoting Cape v. Francis, 741 F.2d 1287, 1294 (11th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S. Ct. 281 , 88 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Decker
See Miller v. Dugger, 838 F.2d 1530, 1542 (11th Cir.1988) (“The psychiatrist based his diagnosis not just on Cape’s demeanor and the sound of Cape’s voice, but on the contents and substance of Cape’s answers to his questions, ‘thus making Cape’s communications to him testimonial in nature.’ ” (quoting Cape v. Francis, 741 F.2d 1287, 1294 (11th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed.2d 245 (1985))).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Loza
See State v. Wilson, 467 So.2d 503, 518 (La. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed.2d 246 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Bradford
See State v. Wilson, 467 So.2d 503, 515 (La.1985), cert. denied, Wilson v. Louisiana, 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed.2d 246 (1985); State v. Johnson, 94-1170 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/23/95) , 660 So.2d 942 , writ denied, 95-2331 (La.2/2/96), 666 So.2d 1092 and State v. Dibartolo, 95-3044 (La.2/2/96), 666 So.2d 1105 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Miller
See State v. Wilson, 467 So.2d 503 (La.1985), cert. denied Wilson v. Louisiana, 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed.2d 246 (1985); State v. Johnson, 94-1170 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/23/95) , 660 So.2d 942 writ denied, State v. Johnson, 95-2331 (La.2/2/96), 666 So.2d 1092 , and State v. Dibartolo, 95-3044 (La.2/2/96), 666 So.2d 1105 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Clausen
See State v. Wilson, 467 So.2d 503 (La.1985), cert. den., Wilson v. Louisiana, 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed.2d 246 (1985); State v. Johnson, 94-1170 (La.App. 4th Cir. 8/23/95), 660 So.2d 942 , writ den., State v. Johnson, 95-2331 (La.2/2/96), 666 So.2d 1092 , and State v. Dibartolo, 95-3044 (La.2/2/96), 666 So.2d 1105 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Isaacs
See State v. Wilson, 467 So.2d 503 (La.1985), cert. denied at 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed.2d 246 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Martinez v. United States
(2×)
See Lucas v. New York, 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed.2d 246 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Casey
See Alderman v. Austin, 695 F.2d 124 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S. Ct. 282 , 88 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Francisco
See also State v. Wilson, 467 So.2d 503 (La.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed.2d 246 (1985); re’hg denied, 474 U.S. 1027 , 106 S.Ct. 585 , 88 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985) (diminished intellectual capacity of defendant only a factor to be considered in determining whether Miranda waiver knowing and intelligent). ...
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Montz
Proc. art. 622; State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 5 (La.4/11/2000) 768 So.2d 542, 552 (citations omitted); see also State v. Wilson, 467 So.2d 503, 512 (La.1985), cert denied, 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed.2d 246 (1985) (burden is on the applicant seeking a change of venue to show that an impartial jury or fair trial is not possible in the original venue).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Poullard
See also State v. Wilson, 467 So.2d 503 (La.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed.2d 246 (1985); re'hg denied, 474 U.S. 1027 , *708 106 S.Ct. 585 , 88 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985) (diminished intellectual capacity of defendant only a factor to be considered in determining whether Miranda waiver knowing and intelligent).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Derrick Myran Frankson, (Two Cases)
Thus, a defendant’s “subsequent willingness to answer questions after acknowledging [his] Miranda rights is sufficient to constitute an implied waiver.” United States v. Velasquez, 626 F.2d 314, 320 (3rd Cir.1980); see also Cape v. Francis, 741 F.2d 1287, 1298 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed.2d 245 (1985); United States v. Stark, 609 F.2d 271 (6th Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Green
See also State v. Wilson, 467 So.2d 503 (La. 1985), cert, denied, 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed.2d 246 (1985); re’hg denied, 474 U.S. 1027 , 106 S.Ct. 585 , 88 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985) (diminished intellectual capacity of defendant only a factor to be considered in determining whether Miranda waiver knowing and intelligent).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Green
See also State v. Wilson, 467 So.2d 503 (La. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed.2d 246 (1985); re'hg denied, 474 U.S. 1027 , 106 S.Ct. 585 , 88 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985) (diminished intellectual capacity of defendant only a factor to be considered in determining whether Miranda waiver knowing and intelligent).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Wright
(2×)
See also Lucas v New York, 474 US 911 ; 106 S Ct 281 ; 88 L Ed 2d 246 (1985), wherein Justice White, dissenting from a denial of certiorari, noted the conflict existing at that time on this issue. [5] See Wright , n 3 supra at 568. [6] A different question would be presented if it were found as a fact that defendant made an equivocal request for counsel which was responded to by deceitful misrepresentation of his options.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Stacy Ann July
See Satterwhite, 486 U.S. at 257-58 ; see also Cape v. Francis, 741 F.2d 1287, 1297 (11th Cir.1984) (determination of whether or not there has been a violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments depends upon the actual use of expert's testimony at trial), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 911 (1985). 19 B.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jon S. Miller, Cross-Appellee v. Richard L. Dugger, Cross-Appellant
Compare Cape v. Francis, 741 F.2d 1287, 1294 (11th Cir.1984) (admission of statement taken in violation of Miranda can be harmless error), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed.2d 245 (1985) with Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. at 398 , 98 S.Ct. at 2416 (admission of truly involuntary statement requires reversal, even if there is other evidence to support conviction). 11 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Saville
v.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
v.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
No. 84-2034.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 15, 1985.
White.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Lead Opinion
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Dissent
Justice White,
dissenting.
In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U. S. 151 (1983) (actions brought under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 185, are governed by the 6-month statute of limitations provided in § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 160(b)), applies retroactively. In so holding, the Court of Appeals followed a prior decision in that court which relied on the factors outlined in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97, 106-107 (1971), in making that retroactivity determination. See Perez v. Dana Corp., Parish Frame Div., 718 F. 2d 581 (CA3 1983). For the reasons stated in my dissent in Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Wilhite, ante, p. 910, I would grant certio-rari in this case.