Vlasak v. United States, 484 U.S. 955 (1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Vlasak v. United States, 484 U.S. 955 (1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
104 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 23 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Francione (connappct, 2012-06-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Francione
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Ramsundar, 204 Conn. 4, 14 , 526 A.2d 1311 (although “[m]otive is not an element” of arson in the first degree, “[s]uch evidence is . . . important” because “[i]t strengthens the state’s case” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S. Ct. 348 , 98 L.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Outing (2×)
Conn. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Ramsundar, 204 Conn. 4, 13 , 526 A.2d 1311 ("[t]he exclusion of evidence from the jury is . . . a drastic sanction, one that is limited to *21 identification testimony which is manifestly suspect" [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 348 , 98 L.Ed.2d 374 (1987).
cited Cited "see" State v. Correa
Conn. App. Ct. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Ramsundar, 204 Conn. 4, 16 , 526 A.2d 1311 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S. Ct. 348 , 98 L.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Thomas
5th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
Id. at 1365 n.25; see United States v. Welch, 810 F.2d 485, 490 (5th Cir.) (noting that government agent had done more than simply conduct witness interviews after the fact, and holding that an agent’s investigation report may constitute a Jencks Act statement of the agent), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S. Ct. 350 , 98 L.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Hodgkiss
5th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
Id. at 1365 n.25; see United States v. Welch, 810 F.2d 485, 490 (5th Cir.) (noting that government agent had done more than simply conduct witness interviews after the fact, and holding that an agent’s investigation report may constitute a Jencks Act statement of the agent), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S. Ct. 350 , 98 L.
discussed Cited "see" Butler v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Welch, 810 F.2d 485 (5th Cir.) (“[Investigation reports can be an agent’s ‘statement’ required to be produced under the Jencks Act.” (emphasis omitted)), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 350 , 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987); United States v. Petito, 671 F.2d 68 (2d Cir.1982) (“Under the Jencks Act appellant was entitled to production of the surveillance report because it constituted the ‘statement’ of a government witness, [the investigating officer], relating to the subject matter about which the witness had testified, his observation of [appellant].”), cer…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Ingham
C.A.A.F. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Haston, 21 MJ 559 (ACMR 1985), affd. on other grounds, 24 MJ 313 (CMA), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 348 , 98 L.Ed.2d 374 (1987); United States v. Huxhold, 20 MJ 990 (NMCMR 1985); and United States v. Rogan, 19 MJ 646 (AFCMR 1984).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Blackburn
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Welch, 810 F.2d 485, 490 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 350 , 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Jerome Susskind (91-1003) James Rumler (91-1004) and Scott Nickerson (91-1005) (2×)
6th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Welch, 817 F.2d 273, 274 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 350 , 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987); United States v. Carr, 965 F.2d 408, 412 (7th Cir. 1992).
discussed Cited "see" Tire Pond Salvage v. inland/wetlands Comm'n, No. 321527 (May 1, 1992)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Ramundar, 204 Conn. 4 , 16 , 526 A.2d 1311 (1987), cert. denied 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S. CT. 348 , 98 L.Ed.2d 374 (1987); DeMilo v. West Haven, 189 Conn. 671 , 681-82 n. 8, 458 A.2d 362 (1983).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Cain
Conn. App. Ct. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Ramsundar, 204 Conn. 4, 14-16 , 526 A.2d 1311 , 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S. Ct. 348 , 98 L.
cited Cited "see" State v. Eichstedt
Conn. App. Ct. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Ramsundar, 204 Conn. 4, 17 , 526 A.2d 1311 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S. Ct. 348 , 98 L.
cited Cited "see" United States v. John L. Cheek
7th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cheek v. Doe, 828 F.2d 395 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 349 , 98 L.Ed.2d 374 (1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Rivera
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
“The factors to be considered in determining the reliability of an identification subsequent to a suggestive identification procedure include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime. [T]he witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation and the time between the crime and the confrontation . . . [are] to be weighed [against] the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Henton, 50 Conn. App. 521, 5…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Watson
Conn. App. Ct. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
State v. Tatum, 219 Conn. 721, 727 , 595 A.2d 322 (1991), quoting State v. Theriault, 182 Conn. 366, 371-72 , 438 A.2d 432 (1980); see also State v. Ramsundar, 204 Conn. 4, 10 , 526 A.2d 1311 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S. Ct. 348 , 98 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Evans
Conn. App. Ct. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
State v. Tatum, 219 Conn. 721, 727 , 595 A.2d 322 (1991), quoting State v. Theriault, 182 Conn. 366, 371-72 , 438 A.2d 432 (1980); see also State v. Ramsundar, 204 Conn. 4, 10 , 526 A.2d 1311 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S. Ct. 348 , 98 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Taylor
Conn. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
State v. Tatum, 219 Conn. 721, 727 , 595 A.2d 322 (1991), quoting State v. Theriault, 182 Conn. 366, 371-72 , 438 A.2d 432 (1980); see also State v. Ramsundar, 204 Conn. 4, 10 , 526 A.2d 1311 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S. Ct. 348 , 98 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jenkins v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
These reports were state ments under Rule 614. 11 See, e.g., Campos v. State, 468 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971) (police officers’ offense reports are discoverable statements under Gaskin); Darrington v. State, 493 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (officer’s offense report was “statement” subject to Gaskin rule); 22 TEX.JUR.3d Criminal Law § 2446 (1982) (describing Gaskin Rule as applicable where state’s witness has “made a report or given a statement”); see also United States v. Welch, 810 F.2d 485, 490 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 350 , 98 L.Ed.2d 3…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Figueroa
Conn. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
State v. Tatum, 219 Conn. 721, 727 , 595 A.2d 322 (1991), quoting State v. Theriault, 182 Conn. 366, 371-72 , 438 A.2d 432 (1980); see also State v. Ramsundar, 204 Conn. 4, 10 , 526 A.2d 1311 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S. Ct. 348 , 98 L.
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Larry Dorsey
4th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
Hinton, 719 F.2d at 721 ; see also United States v. Welch, 817 F.2d 273, 274 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 (1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. James Gordon Keller
5th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
United States v. Merlino, 595 F.2d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071 , 100 S.Ct. 1014 , 62 L.Ed.2d 752 (1980); see also United States v. Welch, 817 F.2d 273, 274 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 350 , 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987); United States v. Sink, 586 F.2d 1041, 1051 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 443 U.S. 912 , 99 S.Ct. 3102 , 61 L.Ed.2d 876 (1979).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Keller
5th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
United States v. Merlino, 595 F.2d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071 (1980); see also United States v. Welch, 817 F.2d 273, 274 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 (1987); United States v. Sink, 586 F.2d 1041, 1051 (5th Cir. 1978), 7 cert. denied, 443 U.S. 912 (1979).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Joseph Wesley Balzer v. United States
8th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
P. 12(b)(1)-(2) & (f); see also Lagerquist v. United States, 820 F.2d 969 , 971 n.5 (8th Cir.) (finding defendant barred from raising insufficiency of indictment in section 2255 motion), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 (1987); Little v. United States, 524 F.2d 335, 336 (8th Cir. 1975) (per curiam) (explaining that errors regarding indictment and grand jury proceedings are not normally cognizable in section 2255 motions), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 920 (1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Wooten
Conn. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
It is well settled that “[i]n determining whether a pretrial identification procedure violated a defendant’s due process rights, ‘the required inquiry is made on an ad hoc basis and is two-pronged: first, it must be determined whether the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive; and second, if it is found to have been so, it must be determined whether the identification was nevertheless reliable based on an examination of the “totality of the circumstances.” ’ ” State v. Tatum, 219 Conn. 721, 727 , 595 A.2d 322 (1991), quoting State v. Theriault, 182 Conn. 366, 371-…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Manuel Bobadilla-Lopez (2×)
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Welch, 810 F.2d 485, 490 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 350 , 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987) (“The district court apparently was persuaded that an agent’s investigation report never can be a Jencks Act statement when the agent himself is the witness_ [However], investigation reports can be an agent’s ‘statement’ required to be produced under the Jencks Act.”) (emphasis in original); United States v. Sorrentino, 726 F.2d 876, 887-88 (1st Cir.1984) (“Walsh had prepared a ‘special agent’s report’ summarizing his pretrial investigation....
cited Cited "see, e.g." Keen v. Ruddy
Alaska · 1989 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Cheek v. Doe, 828 F.2d 395, 397 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct 349 , 98 L.Ed.2d 374 (1987); Golden Eagle Distrib.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Vlasak
v.
United States
No. 87-5149.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 16, 1987.
484 U.S. 955
Published

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.