green
Positive treatment
6.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Bradshaw
(2×)
See State v. Hutchings, 950 P.2d at 433, 435 (holding that "`the liable "person" and the "enterprise" can be the same entity'" under subsections (1) and (2) of section 76-10-1603) (quoting United States v. DiCaro, 772 F.2d 1314, 1320 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1458 , 89 L.Ed.2d 716 (1986)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Matthew Wayne Tome
See United States v. DiCaro, 772 F.2d 1314, 1325 (7th Cir.1985) (citing Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 86 , 91 S.Ct. 210, 218 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970)), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1458 , 89 L.Ed.2d 716 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Edgar H.W. Lum v. City and County of Honolulu, Edgar H.W. Lum v. City and County of Honolulu
See cases collected in Sakamoto v. Duty Free Shoppers, LTD., 764 F.2d 1285, 1288 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1457 , 89 L.Ed.2d 715 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Boettger v. Miklich
(2×)
Accord Scott v. United States, 573 F.Supp. 622 (M.D.Tenn.1983), rev'd on other grounds, Resha v. United States, 767 F.2d 285 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1458 , 89 L.Ed.2d 716 (1986). [7] See also In re Spinelli, 212 N.J.Super. 526 , 515 A.2d 825 (1986) wherein the court, in construing New Jersey's counterpart to the Act, held that disclosure to "investigative or law enforcement officers" is authorized only to the limited class of individuals defined in the act as "investigative or law enforcement officers" under a strict construction similar to that made herein. *14…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Benjamin Barry Kramer, Randy Thomas Lanier, Eugene Albert Fischer, and Kay Dee Bell, Jr.
(2×)
See United States v. Molt, 772 F.2d 366, 369-70 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1458 , 89 L.Ed.2d 715 (1986); United States v. Lewis, 797 F.2d 358, 366-68 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1093 , 107 S.Ct. 1308 , 94 L.Ed.2d 162 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.
See Sakamoto v. Duty Free Shoppers, Ltd., 764 F.2d 1285, 1287 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1457 , 89 L.Ed.2d 715 (1986) ("assumption on non-litigated issues are not precedential holdings binding future decisions.’’) Moreover, later Ninth Circuit authority indicates a different view.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Freidus
See In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Issued to Thirteen Corps., 775 F.2d 43, 48 (2d Cir.), cert, den., Roe v. United States, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1459 , 89 L.Ed.2d 716 (1985) (“Roe”) (“if one of [the witness’] relatives or associates complies with the subpoena, any information obtained from [the witness] would not have been extracted under an order compelling him to testify”).
cited
Cited "see"
Nelson v. Ferrey
See, e,g., United States v. Molt, 772 F.2d 366, 368 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1458 , 89 L.Ed.2d 715 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Daniel W. O'connell, A/K/A Edward Smith, United States of America v. Gregory J. Cooke, United States of America v. Patrick Basil Collier, United States of America v. William R. Patterson, Ii, United States of America v. Richard Allen St. Cyr, A/K/A Dexter
See Resha v. United States, 767 F.2d 285, 287-89 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1458 , 89 L.Ed.2d 716 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. O'Connell
See Resha v. United States, 767 F.2d 285, 287-89 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1458 , 89 L.Ed.2d 716 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
(2×)
See 475 U. S. 1081 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wagner v. United States
See American Acceptance Corp. v. Glendora Better Builders, Inc., 550 F.2d 1220 , 1223 (9th Cir.1977); see also Interfirst Bank Dallas, N.A. v. United States, 769 F.2d 299, 304-05 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1458 , 89 L.Ed.2d 716 (1986); Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 705 F.2d 1487, 1489-90 (9th Cir.1983) (levy operates as a seizure).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hadley
(Id. at 17, J.A. at 99.) As this and other courts have held under analogous facts, such limited and vague recall of events, equivocation, and claims of memory loss satisfy the requirement of Rule 801(d)(1)(A) that a prior statement be “inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony.” See United States v. Distler, 671 F.2d 954, 958 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827 (1981); see also United States v. DiCaro, 772 F.2d 1314, 1321-22 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 (1986); United States v. Williams, 737 F.2d 594, 608 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1003 (1985).22 If a pr…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jerome Hadley
(2×)
On direct examination by defense counsel at Defendant’s sentencing hearing, Mrs. Hadley expressly acknowledged having testified before the grand jury that she had seen Defendant with a gun, but she explained that she had merely “felt” an object and “just assumed that’s what it was.” (3/21/2003 Sentencing Hearing Tr. at 17-18, J.A. at 99-100.) Mrs. Hadleyfurther testified that she could not “remember what I said” in her grand jury testimony, blaming this memory loss on her .use of Prozac. {Id. at 17, J.A. at 99.) As this and other courts have held under analogous facts, such lim…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
O'Neil v. Robinson (In Re Pappas)
See also In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 775 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1459 , 89 L.Ed.2d 716 (1986) (applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 to determined whether subpoenas were properly served to two corporations).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Perkins v. United States
See also, Interfirst Bank Dallas, N.A. v. United States, 769 F.2d 299 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1458 , 89 L.Ed.2d 716 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Opinion No.
See, e.g., Interfirst Bank Dallas, N.A. v. United States, 769 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1458 , 89 L.Ed.2d 716 ; Capozzoli v. Tracey, 663 F.2d 654 (5th Cir. 1981); Morris v. United States, 521 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1975); Scott v. Internal Revenue Service, 622 F. Supp. 537 (E.D.Tenn. 1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Driskill v. State
See, e.g., Interfirst Bank Dallas, N.A. v. United States, 769 F.2d 299 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1458 , 89 L.Ed.2d 716 ; Capozzoli v. Tracey, 663 F.2d 654 (5th Cir.1981); Morris v. United States, 521 F.2d 872 (9th Cir.1975); Scott v. Internal Revenue Service, 622 F.Supp. 537 (E.D.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States of America, at Nos. 89-5372/5383, at No. 89-5510 v. Gaetano Vastola, at No. 89-5372, at No. 89-5510 v. Elias Saka, at No. 89-5383
See also Resha v. United States, 767 F.2d 285, 288 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1458 , 89 L.Ed.2d 716 (1986); United States v. Vento, 533 F.2d 838, 855 (3d Cir.1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States of America (Internal Revenue Service), Creditor-Appellant v. Louis George Barbier, Ruth Dean Barbier, Debtors-Appellees
See American Acceptance Corp. v. Glendora Better Builders, Inc., 550 F.2d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.1977); see also Interfirst Bank Dallas, N.A. v. United States, 769 F.2d 299, 304-05 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1458 , 89 L.Ed.2d 716 (1986); Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 705 F.2d 1487, 1489-90 (9th Cir.1983) (levy operates as a seizure).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dorothy E. Snodgrass v. United States
See, e.g., Interfirst Bank Dallas, N.A. v. United States, 769 F.2d 299, 306 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1458 , 89 L.Ed.2d 716 (1986); Garcia v. United States, 776 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir.1985); Knights of Ku Klux Klan v. East Baton Rouge Parish, 735 F.2d 895 , 902 (5th Cir.1984). 3 . 511 F.2d 661, 662 (1975) (quoting First National Bank of Emlenton, Pa. v. United States, 265 F.2d 297, 299-300 (3d Cir.1959)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Interstate Commerce Commission
v.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
v.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
No. 85-792; No. 85-793.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 24, 1986.
Published
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 245 U. S. App. D. C. 311, 761 F. 2d 714.