green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
147.8 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“RICO requires no more than a slight effect upon interstate commerce”
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cadle Co. v. Flanagan
rico requires no more than a slight effect upon interstate commerce
discussed
Cited "see"
Premium W. Clark v. Jerry D. Rochelle, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert Sills v. Warden, FCI-Texarkana
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bautista Sanchez Florentino aka Florentino Bautista-Sanchez v. United States of America
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kedrien Booker v. Jason M. Gould, ET AL.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tony Curley v. Tamia Nixon, ET AL.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Raheem Mark Miller v. Director, TDCJ-CID
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’).
discussed
Cited "see"
Alexander M. Kingston v. Warden, FCI-Texarkana
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sherry Dawn Meek v. Commissioner of Social Security
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’).
discussed
Cited "see"
David Lavord Dodd v. Clearwater Bay Inc., et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Paul R. Gregory v. Warden FNU LNU, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
James Adams v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
David Juarez v. Kimberly Martin & Assocs., et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Peter E. Lander v. Marc David Krock, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dariou D. Lewis v. Donna King, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Darwin Fisher v. Taylor Williams
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Deandre D. Foster v. Officer Luis Avelar
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert Bacot v. Sgt. Deborah Crawford, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Christopher Dixon v. Sgt. FNU Varing
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brian Keith Lindsay v. Judge Kerry Russell, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’).
discussed
Cited "see"
Roy Edward Smith v. Director, TDCJ-CID
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ty Brett Pierce v. Alicia An, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Deuntae Morgan v. Johnnie Frinzell
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Procomm International PTE. LTD. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Heather Wing v. National Credit Systems, Inc.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Darren Williams v. Warden, FCI-Texarkana
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bin Burgess v. Jeffrey Neal, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s Report and 1 Local Rule CV-11(d) of the Local Rules of Court for the Eastern District of Texas requires that pro se litigants must provide the Court with a physical address and is responsible for keeping the Clerk of Court advised in writing of his current physical address.
discussed
Cited "see"
Craig Mitchell Milam v. United States of America
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jose Lopez Lugo v. Warden, FCI-Texarkana
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rodney Johnson v. Jerry Ash, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’’).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ty Brett Pierce v. William Blanton, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation and Hisense Electronica Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Shuvonn Lemarie Hancock v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
cited
Cited "see"
Sean McNamara v. Officer Ortega, Badge #6120, Natalia Police Department, City of Natalia, Texas, Natalia Police Department
P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
JERALD ANTHONY HALL v. MICHAEL BRITT, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’).
discussed
Cited "see"
Orr Auto, Inc. d/b/a Orr Volkswagen of Texarkana v. Autoplex Extended Services LLC d/b/a Motor Vehicle Services
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
John Boswell v. Craig Lynn Bass
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 , 109 S.Ct. 3243 (1989) (holding that where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kedrien Booker v. FNU Harry, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Aaron Gregory Lucas v. Director TDCJ-CID, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
cited
Cited "see"
Eli Flores v. HEB
P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Darious D. Lewis v. Bryan Collier, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jose Ortega v. Warden, FCI-Texarkana
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Isaac Zarate v. Warden Coger, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’).
cited
Cited "see"
Heather Leach v. HEB
P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Isaac Zarate v. Anthony Fauci
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ty Brett Pierce v. Alicia An, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Eve Escobedo v. Rogelio Carlos Gonzalez
P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v, Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Alejandro Luis Corominas v. Botie Hillhouse, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kristeen Brooke Adams v. Texas Department of Public Safety, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kristeen Brooke Adams v. Southwest Electric Power Company, et al.
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Creative Bath Products, Inc.
v.
Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.
v.
Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.
No. 87-1738.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jul 3, 1989.
Published
Citer courts: D. Connecticut (1)
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.