green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
8.1 score
“here evidence of prior bad acts is admitted for the purpose of showing intent, the prior acts need not duplicate exactly the instant charge, but need only be sufficiently analogous to support an inference of criminal intent.”
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. William L. Woods
here evidence of prior bad acts is admitted for the purpose of showing intent, the prior acts need not duplicate exactly the instant charge, but need only be sufficiently analogous to support an inference of criminal intent.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Brown
See United States v. Infante-Ruiz, 13 F.3d 498 , 503 *10 (1st Cir.1994) (government bears the burden of showing by preponderance of the evidence that item would inevitably have been discovered by lawful means); see generally United States v. Roberts, 852 F.2d 671, 675-76 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 556 , 102 L.Ed.2d 583 (1988) (quoting Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 447 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984)) (“evidence that was illegally obtained will not be suppressed ‘if the government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably’ even if the…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Welch
See United States v. Benton, 852 F.2d 1456, 1469 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 555 , 102 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Welch
See United States v. Benton, 852 F.2d 1456, 1469 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 555 , 102 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988). 14 B.
cited
Cited "see"
Brenda L. Healey v. Southwood Psychiatric Hospital, a Pennsylvania Corporation Lakewood Psychiatric, a Pennsylvania Corporation
See Rider v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 850 F.2d 982 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 556 , 102 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Healey v. Southwood
See Rider v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 850 F.2d 982 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S. Ct. 556 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Celotex Corp. v. Edwards
(2×)
See In re Air Conditioning, Inc. of Stuart, 845 F. 2d 293, 296-299 (CA11), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 993 (1988); In re Compton Corp., 831 F. 2d 586, 595 (1987), modified on other grounds, 835 F. 2d 584 (CA5 1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Searches of Semtex Indus. Corp.
See Roberts v. United States, 656 F.Supp. 929 (S.D.N.Y.1987), reversed on other grounds, 852 F.2d 571 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 556 , 102 L.Ed.2d 583 (1988) (s’tating that the rule says nothing about prudential considerations or irreparable harm); see also Application of First United Financial Corp., 620 F.Supp. 1450 (E.D.N.Y.1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Aero-Fastener, Inc. v. Sierracin Corp. (In Re Aero-Fastener, Inc.)
See American Bank of Martin County v. Leasing Service Corp. (In re Air Conditioning, Inc. of Stuart), 845 F.2d 293, 298 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 557 , 102 L.Ed.2d 584 (1988); In re Jet Florida System, Inc., 841 F.2d 1082 ; Drabkin v. A.I.
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Endicott
Kroner, 953 F.2d at 319 ; see In re Air Conditioning, Inc., 845 F.2d 293, 299 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, First Interstate Credit Alliance Inc. v. American Bank of Martin County, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 557 , 102 L.Ed.2d 584 (1988). *259 II.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Williams
See In re Air Conditioning, Inc. of Stuart, 845 F.2d 293 (11th Cir.), cert. den. (sub nom.) First Interstate Credit Alliance, Inc. v. American Bank, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 557 , 102 L.Ed.2d 584 (1988); Dallas v. S.A.G.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Graham
See Rider v. Pennsylvania, 850 F.2d 982, 988-95 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 556 , 102 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Graham v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Graham)
See Rider v. Pennsylvania, 850 F.2d 982, 988-95 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 556 , 102 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Bbca, Inc., John B. Ellering James L. Noske, Intervenor Below, Joan M. Noske, Intervenor Below v. United States
See United States v. Mansion House Center North Redevelopment, 855 F.2d 524 , 527 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 557 , 102 L.Ed.2d 583 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Lines (S.A.), Inc. v. United States (In Re McLean Industries, Inc.)
See American Bank of Martin County v. Leasing Service Corp. (In re Air Conditioning, Inc.), 845 F.2d 293, 298 (11th Cir. *264 1988), cert. denied 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 557 , 102 L.Ed.2d 584 (1988); Drabkin v. A.I.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Weiner
In order to escape this general rule, a defendant “must carry the ‘heavy burden of showing specific and compelling prejudice resulting from a joint trial which can be rectified only by separate trials.’ ” - United States v. Davis, 809 F.2d at 1207 , (quoting United States v. Dempsey, 733 F.2d 392, 398 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 983 , 105 S.Ct. 389 , 83 L.Ed.2d 323 (1984)); accord United States v. Benton, 852 F.2d 1456, 1469 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 555 , 102 L.Ed.2d 582 .
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Thomson McKinnon Securities Inc.
See In re Air Conditioning Inc. of Stuart, 845 F.2d 293 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 557 , 102 L.Ed.2d 584 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Joseph Kelly
See, e.g., United States v. Benton, 852 F.2d 1456, 1468 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 555 , 102 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988) *656 (allowing evidence of prior acceptance of bribes to show intent to accept drug protection money).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Forman
See also, United States v. Benton, 852 F.2d 1456, 1465 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 555 , 102 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988) (“We fundamentally disagree [with defendant’s contention] that the Supreme Court has necessarily changed the focus of Block-burger analysis from the statutory elements of the offenses argued to be the ‘same’ to the particular facts alleged in the indictment, or proffered as proof at trial----”) The obstruction of justice violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 on which Forman was tried in the first case requires proof of three elements: (1) that a judicial…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Johnson
Johnson, Sr., filed June 25, 1993, at 38; see also United States v. Roberts, 852 F.2d 671 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 556 , 102 L.Ed.2d 583 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. David Milton Thomas, Lisa Reese, William Bide Shelton, and Terry Wayne Giddeons, United States of America v. Johnny Reese
Compare United States v. Tormos-Vega, 959 F.2d 1103, 1115 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992) (stating that no overt act is required) and United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 983 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 2811 , 115 L.Ed.2d 984 (1991) (same) with United States v. Stephens, 964 F.2d 424, 427 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that an overt act is required) and United States v. Benton, 852 F.2d 1456, 1465 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993, 109 S.Ct. 555 , 102 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. James A. Adams, United States of America v. Otto J. Runkel, United States of America v. Buddy Davis A/K/A Indian Philip Cohron Joe Wayne Jones and James A. Adams
Compare United States v. Benton, 852 F.2d 1456, 1465 (6th Cir.1988) ("We fundamentally disagree that the Supreme Court has necessarily changed the focus of Blockburger analysis from the statutory elements of the offenses argued to be the 'same,' to the particular facts alleged in the indictment, or proffered as proof at trial....") (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 555 , 102 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988) with United States v. Sampol, 636 F.2d 621, 652 (D.C.Cir.1980) ("[T]he prohibition in the Constitution against placing an accused twice in jeopardy 'for the same offense ' is dir…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Adams
Compare United States v. Benton, 852 F.2d 1456, 1465 (6th Cir.1988) (“We fun damentally disagree that the Supreme Court has necessarily changed the focus of Block-burger analysis from the statutory elements of the offenses argued to be the ‘same,’ to the particular facts alleged in the indictment, or proffered as proof at trial(footnote omitted), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 555 , 102 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988) with United States v. Sampol, 636 F.2d 621, 652 (D.C.Cir.1980) (“[T]he prohibition in the Constitution against placing an accused twice in jeopardy ‘for the same offense ’…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Zafiro v. United States
(2×)
See, e. g., United States v. Benton, 852 F. 2d 1456, 1469 (CA6), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 993 (1988); United States v. Smith, 788 F. 2d 663, 668 (CA10 1986); Keck, supra, at 765 ; United States v. Magdaniel-Mora, 746 F. 2d 715, 718 (CA11 1984); United States v. Berkowitz, 662 F. 2d 1127, 1133-1134 (CA5 1981); United States v. Haldeman, 181 U. S. App. D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sewell v. New York City Transit Authority
See, e.g., Rider v. Pennsylvania, 850 F.2d 982, 986-87, 995 (3d Cir.1988) (according preclusive effect where state court decided discrimination issue on the merits in vacating arbitrator’s decision), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 556 , 102 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988); Genova v. Town of Southampton, 776 F.2d 1560, 1561 (2d Cir.1985) (upholding preclusive effect of state court confirmation of arbitrator’s decision where plaintiff actually litigated the award’s validity in state court).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rodziewicz v. Beyer
Compare Jalil, 873 F.2d at 705-06 (state court review of arbitrator’s decision not given preclusive effect) with Rider v. Pennsylvania, 850 F.2d 982, 991 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 556 , 102 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988) (state court review of arbitrator’s decision given preclusive effect).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Metrologic Instruments, Inc.
“When an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and a determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action *1400 between the same parties, whether on the same or a different claim.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982); NLRB v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 930 F.2d 316, 319 (3d Cir.1991); see also Rider v. Commonwealth of Pa., 850 F.2d 982, 989 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 556 , 102 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
National Labor Relations Board v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc.
Statutory Preclusion According to the general rule regarding issue preclusion, or collateral es-toppel, “[w]hen an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties, whether on the same or a different claim.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982); see also Rider v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 850 F.2d 982, 989 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 556 , 102 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Air Line Pilots Ass'n International v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)
See e.g., In re Air Conditioning Inc. of Stuart, 845 F.2d 293, 299 (11th Cir.) (district court did not abuse its discretion in resolving issue presented for the first time on appeal from a bankruptcy court), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993 , 109 S.Ct. 557 , 102 L.Ed.2d 584 (1988); Matter of Pizza of Hawaii, Inc., 761 F.2d 1374, 1379-80 (9th Cir.1985) (district court has “power to consider any issue presented by the record even if the issue was not presented to the bankruptcy court”); Abex Corp. v. Ski’s Enterprises, Inc., 748 F.2d 513, 516 (9th Cir.1984) (“It is well settled in this Circuit…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Campbell
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 88-479.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 12, 1988.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.