Reed v. United States, 479 U.S. 954 (1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Reed v. United States, 479 U.S. 954 (1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case · “Because full relief is available under ... Section [14(d)(6) ], we need not decide the claim asserted under Rule 10b-13”
78 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 22 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Saenz v. State (mdctspecapp, 1993-02-25) · Strongest negative: United States v. Sakhawat Ullah, Jr., United States of America v. Mary Katherine Gosho-Kim (ca9, 1992-09-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "but see" United States v. Sakhawat Ullah, Jr., United States of America v. Mary Katherine Gosho-Kim (2×)
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United States v. Reed, 790 F.2d 208, 210-11 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954 , 107 S.Ct. 445 , 93 L.Ed.2d 393 (1986) (upholding conviction by thirteen-person jury agreed to by defendant as harmless error); United States v. Stewart, 700 F.2d 702, 704-05 (11th Cir.1983) (permitting defendant to stipulate to a thirteen-person jury).
discussed Cited "but see" United States v. Henry Sivils (90-6366) Jerry Stokes (90-6375) William Dillard (90-6376) and Sherrill Jordan (90-6420) (2×)
6th Cir. · 1992 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United States v. Reed, 790 F.2d 208, 210 (2d Cir.) (requiring a showing of prejudice even where an alternate participates in the jury’s deliberations), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954 , 107 S.Ct. 445 , 93 L.Ed.2d 393 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Saenz v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 1993 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
he inclusion of malquist's lack of repentance in the court's sentencing calculus was permissible.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Macmillan, Inc. v. American Express Co. (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1989 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
because full relief is available under ... section , we need not decide the claim asserted under rule 10b-13
discussed Cited "see" State v. Washington (2×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
P. 26.01, subd. 1(4); see Reed v. United States, 479 U.S. 954, 954 , 107 S.Ct. 445, 445 , 93 L.Ed.2d 393 (1986) (mem.) (White, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Washington (2×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
P. 26.01, subd. 1(4); see Reed v. United States, 479 U.S. 954, 954 , 107 S.Ct. 445, 445 , 93 L.Ed.2d 393 (1986) (mem.) (White, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).
cited Cited "see" 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6651, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,897 United States of America v. Marvin Henson, United States of America v. Bruce L. Suiters
9th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Malquist, 791 F.2d 1399, 1402 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954 , 107 S.Ct. 445 , 93 L.Ed.2d 394 (1986) (refusal to release grand jury transcript).
cited Cited "see" Greatwood v. United States, Internal Revenue Service (In Re Greatwood)
9th Cir. BAP · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See, United States v. Malquist, 791 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954 , 107 S.Ct. 445 , 93 L.Ed.2d 394 (1986).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Ledger (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Wis. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See sec. 972.02(1) and (2). [7] See also United States v. Reed, 790 F.2d 208, 210 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954 (1986) (where the court stated that the thirteen-person guilty verdict presented no likelihood that the defendant was prejudiced); United States v. Stewart, 700 F.2d 702, 704-05 (11th Cir. 1983) (defense counsel's waiver of a twelveperson jury for a jury of thirteen was a tactical decision because by requiring a unanimous verdict, counsel sought to increase his clients' chances of acquittal); United States v. Kaminski, 692 F.2d 505, 518 (8th Cir. 1982) (where each defendant g…
discussed Cited "see" Joseph W. Bauder v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Malquist, 791 F.2d 1399, 1402 (9th Cir.) (refusal to file tax returns not protectable by a taxpayer's privilege against self-incrimination) cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954 (1986); United States v. Nelson, (In re Becraft), 885 F.2d 547 , 548 n. 2 (9th Cir.1989) (contention that federal income tax laws are inapplicable to residents of one of the states had "no semblance of merit").
discussed Cited "see" Taylor v. State
Fla. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods v. State, 490 So.2d 24, 26 (Fla.) (three peremptories exercised by state against blacks did not rise to level needed to require trial court to inquire into state's motives for challenges), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954 , 107 S.Ct. 446 , 93 L.Ed.2d 394 (1986).
cited Cited "see" Adams v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods v. State, 490 So.2d 24 (Fla.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954 , 107 S.Ct. 446 , 93 L.Ed.2d 394 (1986).
cited Cited "see" Casimiro v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods v. State, 490 So.2d 24 (Fla.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954 , 107 S.Ct. 446 , 93 L.Ed.2d 394 (1986); Thomas v. State, 502 So.2d 994 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 509 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 1987).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Ted H. Kimball
9th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Malquist, 791 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Grabinski, 727 F.2d 681 (8th Cir.1984)), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954 , 107 S.Ct. 445 , 93 L.Ed.2d 394 (1986).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Oliyinka Sobamowo (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Reed, 790 F.2d 208, 210 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954 , 107 S.Ct. 445 , 93 L.Ed.2d 393 (1986) (violation of Rule 24(c) does not require reversal absent showing of prejudice).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Lutrell Davis
9th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Malquist, 791 F.2d 1399, 1402 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954 , 107 S.Ct. 445 , 93 L.Ed.2d 394 (1986); Sirhan, 504 F.2d at 820 .
discussed Cited "see" Litton Industries, Inc. v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
DuPont de Nemours & Co., 615 F.Supp. 96 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (tendering shareholder has private right of action under rule 14e-3); O’Connor v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 529 F.Supp. 1179, 1189-93 (S.D.N.Y.1981) (private right of action for damages under rule 14e-3 extended to options trader); see *451 also Pryor v. United States Steel Corp., 591 F.Supp. 942, 961-62 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (shareholder has implied right of action under rule 14e-1(c)), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 794 F.2d 52 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954 , 107 S.Ct. 445 , 93 L.Ed.2d 393 (1986); Camelot, 535 F.Supp. at 1182-83…
discussed Cited "see" Polaroid Corp. v. Disney (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pryor v. United States Steel Corp., 794 F.2d 52, 57-58 (2d Cir.) (shareholders have right of action under section 14(d)(6)), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954 , 107 S.Ct. 445 , 93 L.Ed.2d 393 (1986); Field v. Trump, 850 F.2d 938, 946 (2d Cir.1988) (shareholders have right of action under section 14(d)(7)).
discussed Cited "see" Polaroid Corporation v. Disney (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pryor v. United States Steel Corp., 794 F.2d 52, 57-58 (2d Cir.) (shareholders have right of action under section 14(d)(6)), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954 , 107 S.Ct. 445 , 93 L.Ed.2d 393 (1986); Field v. Trump, 850 F.2d 938, 946 (2d Cir.1988) (shareholders have right of action under section 14(d)(7)). 42 In light of the judicial construction of Rule 10b-5 and Borak, it is reasonable to conclude that Congress passed the Williams Act with an understanding that courts would construe the Act as creating private remedies that would enforce the provisions of the Act effectively.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Roberto Gonzalez
9th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
United States v. Henry, 883 F.2d 1010, 1012 (11th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Malquist, 791 F.2d 1399, 1402-03 (9th Cir.)) (court could include defendant’s lack of repentance in sentencing calculus), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954 , 107 S.Ct. 445 , 93 L.Ed.2d 394 (1986).
John Reed
v.
United States
86-5211.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 10, 1986.
479 U.S. 954
White.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 91%
Citer courts: S.D. New York (2) · Court of Special Appeals of Ma… (1)
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice WHITE, dissenting.

Lead Opinion

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Dissent

Justice White,

dissenting.

In this case, the District Court permitted a 13th, alternate juror to participate in the jury’s deliberations, a procedure to which petitioner’s counsel stipulated. The 13 jurors unanimously found petitioner guilty. On appeal, petitioner argued that the use of a 13-member jury violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(c), that the Rule is not waivable, and that even if it is, it can only be waived by a defendant personally and not by counsel. The Court of Appeals held that petitioner, through his counsel, had waived compliance with Rule 24(c). It concluded that “[bjecause the waiver herein was neither prejudicial nor of constitutional magnitude and was made in the presence of the defendant in open court, . . . the failure to obtain appellant’s personal assent... , [if erroneous,] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” 790 F. 2d 208, 211 (CA2 1986). This decision conflicts with United States v. Virginia Erection Corp., 335 F. 2d 868, 870 (CA4 1964), which requires a defendant’s express and personal waiver of Rule 24(c), assuming that the Rule can be waived at all. See also United States v. Chatman, 584 F. 2d 1358 (CA4 1978) (explaining Virginia Erection as establishing a per se rule of plain error in cases where Rule 24(c) is violated without obtaining a defendant’s personal consent); United States v. Beasley, 464 F. 2d 468 (CA10 1972) (holding, in a case not involving an issue of waiver, that violations of Rule 24(c) are reversible per se, and approving the result in Virginia Erection). I would grant certiorari to resolve this conflict.