Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Bell Et Al., 482 U.S. 919 (1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Bell Et Al., 482 U.S. 919 (1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 1 distinct case · "statements in the record such as `upon their oaths' are sufficient to show that a jury was sworn"
170 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dyson v. State (alacrimapp, 1998-05-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Dyson v. State
Ala. Crim. App. · 1998 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
statements in the record such as upon their oaths' are sufficient to show that a jury was sworn
discussed Cited "see" Ex Parte Acoff
Ala. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tarver v. State, 500 So.2d 1232, 1242 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd, 500 So.2d 1256 (Ala. 1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 920 , 107 S.Ct. 3197 , 96 L.Ed.2d 685 (1987) (‘[a] minute entry is deemed to be a sufficient showing that the oath was administered’); Porter v. State, 520 So.2d 235, 237 (Ala.Cr.App.1987) (‘statements in the record such as “upon their oaths” are sufficient to show that a jury was sworn’); McGruder v. State, 560 So.2d 1137, 1142 (Ala.Cr.App.1989) (‘[ajlthough the trial transcript does not indicate that the jury was sworn after the selection process, both the judgment…
discussed Cited "see" Pilley v. State
Ala. Crim. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tarver v. State , 500 So.2d 1232 , 1251 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986), aff'd, 500 So.2d 1256 (Ala. 1986), cert. denied 482 U.S. 920 , 107 S.Ct. 3197 , 96 L.Ed.2d 685 (1987) (the definition of "under term of imprisonment" in § 13A-5-49 (1) encompasses persons on probation or parole).
discussed Cited "see" Pilley v. State
Ala. Crim. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tarver v. State, 500 So.2d 1232, 1251 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), aff'd, 500 So.2d 1256 (Ala.1986), cert. denied 482 U.S. 920 , 107 S.Ct. 3197 , 96 L.Ed.2d 685 (1987) (the definition of “under term of imprisonment” in § 13A-5-49(1) encompasses persons on probation or parole).
discussed Cited "see" Teague v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Demouchette v. State, 731 S.W.2d 75, 83 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 920 , 107 S.Ct. 3197 , 96 L.Ed.2d 685 (1987); Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 622 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 872 , 109 S.Ct. 190 , 102 L.Ed.2d 159 (1988).
discussed Cited "see" Hathorn v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. Crim. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Demouchette v. State, 731 S.W.2d 75, 83 (Tex.Crim.App.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 920 , 107 S.Ct. 3197 , 96 L.Ed.2d 685 (1987) (holding that to preserve error, a defendant must exhaust all of his peremptory challenges, he must be denied a request for additional challenges, and he must identify a member of the jury who is objectionable and who he would have struck with an additional peremptory challenge).
cited Cited "see" DeBlanc v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Demouchette v. State, 731 S.W.2d 75, 82 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) cert. denied, 482 U.S. 920 , 107 S.Ct. 3197 , 96 L.Ed.2d 685 (1987). 10 .
examined Cited "see" Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Ontario v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (4×)
D.C. Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York v. Thomas, 613 F.Supp. 1472, 1486-93 (D.D.C.1985) (reproducing the two letters), rev'd, 802 F.2d 1443 (D.C.Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 919 , 107 S.Ct. 3196 , 96 L.Ed.2d 684 (1987).
examined Cited "see" Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (4×)
D.C. Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York v. Thomas, 613 F.Supp. 1472, 1486-93 (D.D.C.1985) (reproducing the two letters), rev’d, 802 F.2d 1443 (D.C.Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 919 , 107 S.Ct. 3196 , 96 L.Ed.2d 684 (1987).
discussed Cited "see" McLeod v. State
Ala. Crim. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tarver v. State , 500 So.2d 1232 , 1245 (Ala.Cr.App.), affirmed, 500 So.2d 1256 (Ala. 1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 920 , 107 S.Ct. 3197 , 96 L.Ed.2d 685 (1987) (where defendant made no "showing of the need for a forensic expert" to examine fingerprints on a beer can, he "was not unconstitutionally denied the assistance of experts"); Hold v. State , 485 So.2d 801 , 803 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986) (where defendant failed to make a showing of need for private investigator, trial court's denial of defendant's request for funds to hire same did not violate defendant's due process rights).
discussed Cited "see" National Ass'n for Better Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission
D.C. Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
Cir.1984) (quoting Functional Music, Inc. v. FCC, 274 F.2d 543, 548 (D.C.Cir.1958), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 813 , 80 S.Ct. 50 , 4 L.Ed.2d 60 (1959); emphasis in original); see abo Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 801 F.2d 501 , reh’g denied, 806 F.2d 1115 (D.C.Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3196 , 96 L.Ed.2d 684 (1987)).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Ex Parte Deramus
Ala. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Tarver v. State , 500 So.2d 1232 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 500 So.2d 1256 (Ala. 1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 920 , 107 S.Ct. 3197 , 96 L.Ed.2d 685 (1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." O'SHIELDS v. State (2×)
Ala. Crim. App. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Tarver v. State , 500 So.2d 1232 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd, 500 So.2d 1256 (Ala. 1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 920 , 107 S.Ct. 3197 , 96 L.Ed.2d 685 (1987).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Dansby v. State
Ala. Crim. App. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Tarver v. State, 500 So.2d 1232 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd, 500 So.2d 1256 (Ala. 1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 920 , 107 S.Ct. 3197 , 96 L.Ed.2d 685 (1987).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
SCOTUS · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCC, 801 F. 2d 501, 508-509 (CADC 1986), cert. denied, 482 U. S. 919 (1987); L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Harris v. State
Ala. Crim. App. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Tarver v. State, 500 So.2d 1232, 1251 (Ala.Cr.App.), affirmed, 500 So.2d 1256 (Ala. 1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 920 , 107 S.Ct. 3197 , 96 L.Ed.2d 685 (1987); Thompson v. State, 542 So.2d 1286, 1300 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), affirmed, 542 So.2d 1300 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 874 , 110 S.Ct. 208 , 107 L.Ed.2d 161 (1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." National Association For Better Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission
D.C. Cir. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
On numerous and quite recent occasions, this court has endorsed the Muzak view of Sec. 153(o ) that "the test for whether a particular activity constitutes broadcasting is whether there is 'an intent for public distribution and whether the programming is of interest to the general ... audience.' " National Ass'n of Broadcasters v. FCC, 740 F.2d 1190, 1201 (D.C.Cir.1984) (quoting Functional Music, Inc. v. FCC, 274 F.2d 543, 548 (D.C.Cir.1958), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 813 , 80 S.Ct. 50 , 4 L.Ed.2d 60 (1959); emphasis in original); see also Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 801 F…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Burlington Northern Railroad Company
v.
Charles O. Bell, Jr.
86- 1475.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 8, 1987.
482 U.S. 919
White.
Cited by 121 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 62%
Citer courts: Court of Criminal Appeals of A… (1)
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Fourth Division.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice WHITE, dissenting.

Lead Opinion

Ct. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.

Dissent

Justice White,

dissenting.

This case presents the question whether a state court may proceed to adjudicate a case after a removal petition has been filed in federal court. Respondents in this case brought a negligence action against petitioner and an individual defendant in state court. After seven days of trial, the trial court dismissed the individual defendant. Petitioner then filed a removal petition in federal court, alleging diversity of citizenship. The state trial court proceeded despite the removal petition and the jury rendered a verdict against petitioner. Subsequently, the District Court held that the case was not properly removed because the individual defendant was dismissed on the merits and not, as petitioner contended, with the consent of the plaintiffs. The District Court remanded the case and the state trial court entered judgment against petitioner on the basis of the previously rendered jury verdict.

The trial court and the Oklahoma Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s argument that the verdict against it is void under 28[*920] U. S. C. § 1446(e), which provides that the proper filing of a removal petition “shall effect the removal [to federal court] and the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.”

The decision below conflicts with cases holding that when a case has been removed to federal court the state court lacks jurisdiction to act until the case is remanded. See, e. g., South Carolina v. Moore, 447 F. 2d 1067, 1072-1074 (CA4 1971); Mississippi Power Co. v. Luter, 336 So. 2d 753, 755 (Miss. 1976). I would grant certiorari to resolve this conflict.