green
Positive treatment
7.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Chantharath v. State
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676 (1st Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States of America,appellee v. Luis Navarrete-Barron, A/k/aluis Navarrete,appellant
See United States v. Abokhai, 829 F.2d 666, 669 (8th Cir.1987) (“Briefly detaining a suspicious individual in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information is considered an essential ingredient of good police work.”), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1082 , 99 L.Ed.2d 241 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. L. Navarrete-Barron
See United States v. Abokhai, 829 F.2d 666, 669 (8th Cir. 1987) ("Briefly detaining a suspicious individual in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information is considered an essential ingredient of good police work."), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Downing v. Brown
See Stout v. Grand Prairie I.S.D., 733 S.W.2d 290, 293 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1987, writ ref d n.r.e.), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1082 , 99 L.Ed.2d 241 (1988); Baker v. Story, 621 S.W.2d 639, 644 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1981, writ ref d n.r.e.); Sewell v. London, 371 S.W.2d 426 *320 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana 1963, no writ); Comment, Liability of Texas Public Officials for Their Tortious Acts, 16 Hous.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Sawyer
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 679 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Sawyer
See United ___ ______ States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 679 (1st Cir. 1987), cert. ______ ______ _____ denied, 485 U.S. 907 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kettenbach v. Demoulas
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 686-87 (1st Cir.1987) (in prosecution for medical insurance fraud, false records maintained to conceal fraudulent claims submitted by physicians were statements that “clearly furthered the main objectives of the conspiracy”) (internal quotations and citation omitted), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988); United States v. Paone, 782 F.2d 386, 391 (2d Cir.1986) (“[I]n furtherance requirement ... satisfied when a co-conspirator is apprised of the progress of the conspiracy, or when the statements are designed to indu…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mancebo-Santiago
See United States v. Abokhai, 635 F.Supp. 845 (E.D.Mo. 1986) (holding that issuance of a new visa to a previously deported alien by the American consulate in a foreign country did not provide a defense under § 1326 where the defendant failed to advise the consul that he had been previously deported), aff'd, 829 F.2d 666 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1082 , 99 L.Ed.2d 241 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Pezzullo
See ___ United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 683 (1st Cir. 1987) _________________________ (Maniego instruction not required where the "prosecutor did not _______ -46- 46 attempt to create the impression that [the attorney] should be held to a higher standard of care" and where comments during trial about the defendant's status as an attorney "were directed towards [defendant's] role (as a lawyer) which was central to the scheme"), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 (1988); Picciandra, 788 F.2d ____________ __________ at 46.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cassiere
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 683 (1st Cir.1987) (Maniego instruction not required where the “prosecutor did not attempt to create the impression that [the attorney] should be held to a higher standard of care” and where comments during trial about the defendant’s status as an attorney “were directed towards [defendant’s] role (as a lawyer) which was central to the scheme”), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988); Picciandra, 788 F.2d at 46 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Felix Pagan-Vega, United States v. Justiniano Cuevas-Burgos
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 685 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 (1988). 8 The Supreme Court has held that such findings need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence, even in a criminal prosecution.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Debra A. Hartmann, Kenneth K. Kaenel, and John Scott Korabik
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 684 (1st Cir.1987) (invocation of the.Fifth Amendment during cross-examination is proper under Rule 608(b) and may be considered by the jury as a form of impeachment) (citing Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 , 37 S.Ct. 192 , 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917)), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ricky Joe Orr v. Jack Cowley the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
(2×)
See White v. State, 726 P.2d 905, 909 (Okla.Crim.App.1986) (Parks, P.J., dissenting), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jorge Ivan Berrio-Londono
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 685 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Bowden v. State
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676 (1st Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Casamento
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 685 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Casamento
See United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 685 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gamez v. State
See also United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676 (1st Cir.1987) (holding if the witness intends to claim the privilege as to essentially all questions, the court may, in its discretion, refuse to allow him to take the stand), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988); United States v. Deutsch, 987 F.2d 878 (2d Cir.1993) (holding the trial court has the discretion to prevent a party from calling a witness solely to have him or her invoke the fifth amendment).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Roberts
No constitutional violation results from a trial court’s restrictions on questions designed to impeach credibility if defense counsel has been allowed to elicit from the witness “sufficient information ... from which the jury can adequately gauge the witness’s credibility.” United States v. Burke, 738 F.2d 1225, 1227 (11th Cir. 1984); see also United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676, 683-84 (1st Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 (1988); Ramos, 121 N.H. at 866-67 , 435 A.2d at 1124 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wilburn A. Henderson v. Willis Sargent, Warden, Arkansas Department of Correction
Before moving past the exhaustion requirement to cause and prejudice, we note that the Supreme Court “generally requires that a claim of ineffective assistance be presented to the state courts as an independent claim before it may be used to establish cause for procedural default.” Carrier, 477 U.S. at 489 , 106 S.Ct. at 2646 ; see also Leggins v. Lockhart, 822 F.2d 764 , 768 n. 5 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 907 , 108 S.Ct. 1080 , 99 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Miller
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 87-5788.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 29, 1988.
Published
Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.