green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.8 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 2 distinct cases ·
"We recognize that the decision to institute deportation proceedings involves the exercise of prosecutorial discretion[.]"
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Manuela Rodriguez v. United States
(2×)
Sami held that FTCA Sec. 2680(h) opens the government to suit for false arrest even though its law enforcement officer was not directly involved in "frontline law enforcement work." See id. at 764 ; but cf. Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 872 (3d Cir.) (restricting waiver of sovereign immunity effected under FTCA Sec. 2680(h) to enumerated torts by investigative or law enforcement officers "in the course of a search, a seizure or an arrest"), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849 , 107 S.Ct. 175 , 93 L.Ed.2d 111 (1986).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Rodriguez v. United States
Sami held that FTCA 2680(h) opens the government to suit for false arrest even though its law enforcement officer was not directly involved in "frontline law 17 enforcement work." See id. at 764 ; but cf. Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 872 (3d Cir.) (restricting waiver of sovereign immunity effected under FTCA 2680(h) to enumerated torts by investigative or law enforcement officers "in the course of a search, a seizure or an arrest"), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849 (1986).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Rodriguez v. United States
Sami held that FTCA 2680(h) ____ opens the government to suit for false arrest even though its law enforcement officer was not directly involved in "frontline law ___ 17 enforcement work." See id. at 764 ; but cf. Pooler v. United ___ ___ ___ ___ ______ ______ States, 787 F.2d 868, 872 (3d Cir.) (restricting waiver of ______ sovereign immunity effected under FTCA 2680(h) to enumerated torts by investigative or law enforcement officers "in the course of a search, a seizure or an arrest"), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849 _____ ______ (1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ayala v. United States
we recognize that the decision to institute deportation proceedings involves the exercise of prosecutorial discretion
discussed
Cited "see"
Garcia v. United States
See 1992 WL 149871, at *2 . 4 In Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 871 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849 , 107 S.Ct. 175 , 93 L.Ed.2d 111 (1986), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found the discretionary-function exception covered alleged deficiencies in investigative methods that led to the plaintiffs arrest.
cited
Cited "see"
Curcuru v. Rose's Oil Service, Inc.
See Oglebay Norton Co. v. CSX Corp., 788 F.2d 361, 366 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849 (1986), and cases cited.
discussed
Cited "see"
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6409, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,547, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,799 Sara Townsend Sabow Thomas F. Sabow Vera Sabow David N. Sabow Dierdre Sabow John David Sabow v. United States
See generally Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 871 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849 , 107 S.Ct. 175 , 93 L.Ed.2d 111 (1986) ("Decision making as to investigation and enforcement, particularly when there are different types of enforcement action available, are discretionary judgments." (quoting Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948, 955 (3d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980))); Hobdy v. United States, 762 F.Supp. 1459, 1461 (D.Kan.1991), aff'd, 968 F.2d 20 (10th Cir.1992) ("[T]he decision how to investigate, who to investigate, and how to …
discussed
Cited "see"
Sabow v. United States
See generally Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 871 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849 , 107 S.Ct. 175 , 93 L.Ed.2d 111 (1986) (“Decision making as to investigation and enforcement, particularly when there are different types of enforcement action available, are discretionary judgments.” (quoting Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948, 955 (3d Cir.1980), ce rt. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980))); Hobdy v. United States, 762 F.Supp. 1459, 1461 (D.Kan.1991), aff'd, 968 F.2d 20 (10th Cir.1992) (“[T]he decision how to investigate, who to investigate, and …
cited
Cited "see"
Donahue v. Commonwealth
See Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 871 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Simpson v. McCarthy
See Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 873-74 (3d Cir.1986) (concurrence of Seitz, J.) cert. denied 479 U.S. 849 , 107 S.Ct. 175 , 93 L.Ed.2d 111 (1987).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
John R. Gasho, Sr. Sharon L. Gasho v. United States of America Northrop Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, John R. Gasho, Sr. Sharon L. Gasho Millardair, Ltd., a Canadian Corporation v. William L. Ball Roger Mannhalter John J. Howe, Jr.
Id.; see also Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 872-73 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849 , 107 S.Ct. 175 , 93 L.Ed.2d 111 (1986).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Gasho v. United States
Id.; see also Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 872-73 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849 , 107 S.Ct. 175 , 93 L.Ed.2d 111 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Anthony J. Prisco, Jr. v. Dennis P. Talty, Individually T/a Zeitz and Talty Glenn A. Zeitz, Esq., Individually T/a Zeitz and Talty
Federal officials do not possess discretion to violate constitutional rights or federal statutes.” United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States, 837 F.2d 116, 120 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1235 , 108 S.Ct. 2902 , 101 L.Ed.2d 935 (1988); see also Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 871 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849 , 107 S.Ct. 175 , 93 L.Ed.2d 111 (1986) (federal officials do not possess discretion to violate constitutional rights or federal statutes).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Flax v. United States
See also Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 871 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849 , 107 S.Ct. 175 , 93 L.Ed.2d 111 (1986) (holding that because the government agent charged with the responsibility of conducting an investigation had to exercise discretion as to the policy decision to use an informant and as to the extent of control which should be maintained over the selected informant, his actions were protected by the discretionary function exception).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Anderson v. Whittaker Corp.
See, e.g., Oglebay Norton Co. v. CSX Corp., 788 F.2d 361, 367 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849 , 107 S.Ct. 173 , 93 L.Ed.2d 109 (1986); In re United States Steel Corp., 436 F.2d 1256 , 1279 (6th Cir.1970); Cleveland Tankers, Inc. v. Tierney, 169 F.2d 622, 626 (6th Cir.1948).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Widmer
v.
Widmer, of the Estate of Widmer
v.
Widmer, of the Estate of Widmer
No. 86-32.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1986.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: E.D. Virginia (1)
Ct. App. Ark. Certiorari denied.