green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
12.7 score
“there is no doubt that the district court must make an independent evaluation of whether the named plaintiffs were adequate representatives of the class-”
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Prezant v. De Angelis
there is no doubt that the district court must make an independent evaluation of whether the named plaintiffs were adequate representatives of the class-
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Anthony Ray Jefferson and Roosevelt Jefferson, Jr.
plain error is obvious and substantial error that affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
cited
Cited "see"
Dodson v. Warden Belmont Correctional Institution
See United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 , 106 S.Ct. 1796 , 90 L.Ed.2d 341 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Roderick Maxie
See United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 220 (8th Cir.), cert denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1797 , 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986) (reviewing for plain error the district court’s rulings limiting cross-examination where no timely objection was made at trial).
cited
Cited "see"
Dale v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
See Malchman v. Davis, 761 F.2d 893 (2nd Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1798 , 90 L.Ed.2d 343 (1986); Fischer v. Int’l Tel. & Tel.
cited
Cited "see"
Winn v. Renico
See United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 , 106 S.Ct. 1796 , 90 L.Ed.2d 341 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Collins
See United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 220 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1797 , 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986). [¶ 14] The Court believes that there are no overriding reasons or unique circumstances present to warrant the granting of a separate trial to Collins.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Collins
See United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 220 (8th Cir.), cert, denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1797 , 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986). [¶ 14] The Court believes that there are no overriding reasons or unique circumstances present to warrant the granting of a separate trial to Collins.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Pierce
See State v. Miller, 227 Conn. 363, 370 , 630 A.2d 1315 (1993), citing State v. Fleming, 198 Conn. 255, 262-63 , 502 A.2d 886 , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S. Ct. 1797 , 90 L.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Timothy R. Fairchild
See United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 221-22 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1797 , 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
ca8 1999
See United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 221-22 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Alan Kvamme
See United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 220-21 (8th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Barker v. United States, 475 U.S. 1143 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Harris
See State v. Fleming, 198 Conn. 255, 270 , 502 A.2d 886 , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S. Ct. 1797 , 90 L.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ronald Collis
See United States v. Faudman, 640 F.2d 20 (6th Cir.1981), and United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 , 106 S.Ct. 1796 , 90 L.Ed.2d 341 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Skinner Group, Inc.
See Malchman v. Davis, 761 F.2d 893, 906-08 (2d Cir.1985) (Newman, J., concurring), ce rt. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1798 , 90 L.Ed.2d 343 (1986) ("It is unlikely that a defendant will gratuitously accede to the plaintiffs’ request for a ‘clear sailing' clause without obtaining something in return.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Crop Growers Corp.
See United States v. Guzman, 781 F.2d 428, 432-33 (5th Cir.1986) (per curiam), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1798 , 90 L.Ed.2d 343 (1986); United States v. Bennett, 702 F.2d 833 (9th Cir.1983).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Barrett
See State v. Fleming, 198 Conn. 255, 264 , 502 A.2d 886 , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S. Ct. 1797 , 90 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Falls
See United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214 , 221- 22 (8th Cir.) (wiretapping under 18 U.S.C. § 2518 ), cert. denied sub nom., Barker et al. v. United States, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1797 , 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gene R. \Moon\" Mullins"
(2×)
See United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 679 (6th Cir.1985) (mens rea for § 1503 is the “general intent of knowledge as well as the specific intent of purpose to obstruct”) (emphasis omitted), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 , 106 S.Ct. 1796 , 90 L.Ed.2d 341 (1986); United States v. Scaife, 749 F.2d 338, 348 (6th Cir.1984) (mens rea for § 1512 is a “knowing” use of corrupt persuasion with an intent to interfere with official proceedings).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca8 1994
Sec. 2518 (5); see United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 224 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1797 , 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986). 17 In Scott, the government established probable cause that nine individuals were using a particular phone in a conspiracy to import and distribute narcotics and obtained a wiretap order that contained a provision requiring minimization.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lucht
In order to limit these intrusions and comply with the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement, the statute requires every order to “contain a provision that the authorization to intercept ... shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception under this chapter.” 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (5); see United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 224 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1797 , 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Johnson
See State v. Fleming, 198 Conn. 255, 259-63 , 502 A.2d 886 , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S. Ct. 1797 , 90 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Antonio Martinez-Cortez
HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.032, 481.102, 481.115 (Vernon 1992) 3 See 18 U.S.C.S. § 924 (e)(2)(A)(ii) 4 United States v. Vidaure, 861 F.2d 1337, 1338 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1088 , 109 S.Ct. 1551 , 103 L.Ed.2d 854 (1989); see United States v. Silva, 957 F.2d 157, 161 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 250 , 121 L.Ed.2d 182 (1992) 5 United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 49 (5th Cir.) (citing United States v. Brunson, 915 F.2d 942, 944 (5th Cir.1990)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2032 , 114 L.Ed.2d 117 (1991) 6 Id. at 50 (citing United States v. G…
discussed
Cited "see"
U.S. v. Martinez-Cortez
(2×)
As he failed to object, "[h]e may not raise an objection now . . . absent plain error."5 This court has stated that "plain error" is error that "when examined in the context of the entire case, is so obvious and substantial that failure to notice and correct it would affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings."6 "It is a mistake so fundamental that it constitutes a 'miscarriage of justice.'"7 When a new factual or legal error is raised for the first time on appeal, "plain error occurs whe[n] our failure to 4 United States v. Vidaure, 861 F.2d 1337, 1338 (5th Ci…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mavroules
See United States v. Guzman, 781 F.2d 428, 432-33 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1798 , 90 L.Ed.2d 343 (1986) (false statements, made in separate documents, constitute separate crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Myron R. Tallman, United States of America v. Cynthia K. Green
See United States v. Jones, 801 F.2d 304 (8th Cir.1986). 5 Likewise, we conclude that when read in a practical and common sense fashion, United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 221 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1797 , 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986), the affidavit satisfied the requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (3)(c) that the issuing judicial officer be able to determine from the application that normal investigative procedures had been tried and had failed and that it reasonably appeared that such procedures would be unlikely to succeed if tried.
cited
Cited "see"
ca5 1991
See United States v. Guzman, 781 F.2d 428, 431-32 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1798 , 90 L.Ed.2d 343 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Lucci
See State v. Fleming, 198 Conn. 255, 265 , 502 A.2d 886 , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S. Ct. 1797 , 90 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Permian Petroleum Co. v. Petroleos Mexicanos
See United States v. Guzman, 781 F.2d 428, 431-32 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1798 , 90 L.Ed.2d 343 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
William Weinberger v. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp.
See Malchman v. Davis, 761 F.2d 893 , 906-08 (2d Cir.1985) (Newman, J., concurring), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1798 , 90 L.Ed.2d 343 (1986); In re WICAT Secur.
discussed
Cited "see"
Jack Allen Dale v. Glenn Haeberlin, Acting Warden, Kentucky State Penitentiary
(2×)
See United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 , 106 S.Ct. 1796 , 90 L.Ed.2d 341 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael B. Mitchell Clarence M. Mitchell, III
See United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 677-79 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 , 106 S.Ct. 1796 , 90 L.Ed.2d 341 (1985) (rejecting similar argument under § 1503). 6 .
discussed
Cited "see"
ca8 1989
See United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 220 (8th Cir.) ("Appellants must show that the denial of severance clearly and actually prejudiced them."), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1797 , 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986). 19 We are not persuaded that joinder of the offenses resulted in real prejudice.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael R. Davis, United States of America v. William W. Harris
See United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 220 (8th Cir.) (“Appellants must show that the denial of severance clearly and actually prejudiced them.”), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1797 , 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jones
See United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 220 (8th Cir.) (“Appellants must show that the denial of severance clearly and actually prejudiced them.”), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1797 , 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. William Ruiz-Vargas A/K/A William Ruiz A/K/A Willie Ruiz
See United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 228 (8th Cir.) (defendant must present clear and convincing case of abuse of discretion or patent violation of constitutional guarantee to warrant setting aside sentence), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1797 , 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Juan Francisco Valdez
See United States v. Guzman, 781 F.2d 428, 432 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1798 , 90 L.Ed.2d 343 (1986); United States v. Berkowitz, 662 F.2d 1127, 1136 (5th Cir.1981).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jones
See United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 682 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 , 106 S.Ct. 1796 , 90 L.Ed.2d 341 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael Tobias
See United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 679-82 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 , 106 S.Ct. 1796 , 90 L.Ed.2d 341 (1986); United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 70-72 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871 , 100 S.Ct. 148 , 62 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Ostroski
See State v. Fleming, 198 Conn. 255 , 502 A.2d 886 , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S. Ct. 1797 , 90 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Custodio
See, e.g., State v. Fleming, 198 Conn. 255, 259-63 , 502 A.2d 886 , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S. Ct. 1797 , 90 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Therrien
See, e.g., State v. Fleming, 198 Conn. 255, 259-63 , 502 A.2d 886 , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S. Ct. 1797 , 90 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. James
Furthermore, “[ujnder Connecticut law, a defendant may be convicted as an accessory even though he was charged only as a principal as long as the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to establish accessorial conduct.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Williams, 220 Conn. 385, 388 , 599 A.2d 1053 (1991); see also State v. Fleming, 198 Conn. 255 , 268 n.15, 502 A.2d 886 , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S. Ct. 1797 , 90 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ca8 1998
Mr. Mathison argues that the affiant in his case intentionally included false statements and omitted exculpatory ones. 20 We agree with the trial court that Mr. Mathison was not entitled to a Franks hearing because he did not make "a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit." Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 ; see also United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 222 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1797 , 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Eugene H. Mathison
(2×)
We agree with the trial court that Mr. Mathison was not entitled to a Franks hearing because he did not make “a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 ; see also United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 222 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1797 , 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gruber
See e.g., United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214 , 222 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S.Ct. 1797 , 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986); United States v. Leisure, 844 F.2d 1347 , 1357 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 932 , 109 S.Ct. 324 , 102 L.Ed.2d 342 (1988); United States v. Ippolito, 774 F.2d 1482, 1485 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1208, 1221 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1206 , 103 S.Ct. 1194 , 75 L.Ed.2d 439 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Solek
Moreover, “[u]nder Connecticut law, a defendant may be convicted as an accessory even though he was charged only as a principal as long as the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to establish accessorial conduct.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Williams, 220 Conn. 385, 388 , 599 A.2d 1053 (1991); see also State v. Fleming, 198 Conn. 255 , 268 n.15, 502 A.2d 886 , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143 , 106 S. Ct. 1797 , 90 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Marvin L. Warner v. Rex A. Zent, Warden
(2×)
See, e.g., Alpers, 338 U.S. at 681 , 70 S.Ct. at 353 , United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 676 (6th Cir.1985) (quoting United States v. Essex, 407 F.2d 214, 218 (6th Cir.1969)), ce rt. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 , 106 S.Ct. 1796 , 90 L.Ed.2d 341 (1986); United States v. Waechter, 111 F.2d 974, 978 (6th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ca4 1992
Also, we hold that "in view of the statute's plainly legitimate sweep in regulating conduct, it is not so substantially overbroad that any overbreadth that may exist cannot be cured on a case by case basis." Girard, 601 F.2d at 72 ; see also United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 682 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 , 106 S.Ct. 1796 , 90 L.Ed.2d 341 (1986) (rejecting claim that section 641 was overbroad). 45 Defendants also challenge the district court's jury instructions.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. McAusland
Also, we hold that “in view of the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep in regulating conduct, it is not so substantially overbroad that any overbreadth that may exist cannot be cured on a case by case basis.” Girard, 601 F.2d at 72 ; see also United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 682 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 , 106 S.Ct. 1796 , 90 L.Ed.2d 341 (1986) (rejecting claim that section 641 was overbroad).
Benedum
v.
Perini, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institution
v.
Perini, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institution
No. 85-6496.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 28, 1986.
Published
Citer courts: Tenth Circuit (1) · Supreme Court of Delaware (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.