green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
8.2 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
North River Insurance v. Allstate Insurance
rom what the supreme court has said, it appears that the preclusive effect of prior arbitration awards is for individual resolution, absent a provision in the governing contract that requires earlier awards to bind subsequent arbitrators.
discussed
Cited "see"
Pueblo of Jemez v. United States
See United States v. Dann , 873 F.2d 1189 , 1200 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that the Dann sisters' individual land title was restricted to land that they or their descendants occupied before 1934, and restricting animal number and type that could graze), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 234 , 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Harvard
See United States v. Rapp, 871 F.2d 957, 963 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 233 , 107 L.Ed.2d 184 (1989); United States v. McGuire, 744 F.2d 1197, 1202 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1004 , 105 S.Ct. 1866 , 85 L.Ed.2d 159 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Barron
See United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9 (1st Cir.) (rejecting due process and double jeopardy challenges to resentencing on Count II after remand where sentence on Count I was vacated on appeal and eventual sentence for Count II was equal to former sentence for both Count I and Count II), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 233 , 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989); accord United States v. Bay, 820 F.2d 1511, 1513-14 (9th Cir.1987) (recognizing that sentence imposed for multiple counts is a composite which must be revisited as a totality if one or more but less than all components are eliminat…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lilly
See United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9, 16-17 (1st Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 233 , 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lilly
See United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9 , ___ _____________ ________________ 16-17 (1st Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 __ ____ _____ ______ (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Valle
See generally United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9, 14 (1st Cir.) (en banc) (discussing, in a pre-Guidelines ease, the district court’s “authority to reshape a sentence when multiple convictions gamer mixed reviews on appeal — some affirmed, some reversed”), cer t. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 233 , 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Valle
See ___ generally United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9, 14 (1st _________ _____________ ________________ Cir.) (en banc) (discussing, in a pre-Guidelines case, the district court's "authority to reshape a sentence when multiple convictions garner mixed reviews on appeal some affirmed, some reversed"), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 (1989). _____ ______ We need go no further.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Shaun K. O'Neil
See generally United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9, 14 (1st Cir.) (en banc) (discussing resentencing in multiple-count case after determination that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred imposition of separate sentence on one of two counts of conviction), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 283 , 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. David Milton Thomas, Lisa Reese, William Bide Shelton, and Terry Wayne Giddeons, United States of America v. Johnny Reese
See United States v. Rapp, 871 F.2d 957 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 233 , 107 L.Ed.2d 184 (1989) (the delivery of a modified Allen charge to the jury, outside the presence of and without prior communication with counsel held harmless error); United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459, 1465-66 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1100 , 106 S.Ct. 879 , 880, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986) (finding court’s private communication with juror concerning the juror’s fear of the defendants’ harmless).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. David Severson and John Steele
See United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9, 14 (1st Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 233 , 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989) (when one or more counts is removed from the sentencing package, district court must redefine the package’s size and shape in light of those withdrawals).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hurlburt v. Cunningham
See United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9, 13 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 (1989) (declining to apply the Pearce presumption where the district court reimposed the original sentence after remand despite reversal on one count by the court of appeals).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hurlburt v. Cunningham
See ___ United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9, 13 (1st Cir.), _____________ ________________ cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 (1989) (declining to apply the ____________ Pearce presumption where the district court reimposed the ______ original sentence after remand despite reversal on one count by the court of appeals).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert C. Hurlburt v. Michael J. Cunningham
See United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9, 13 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 233 , 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989) (declining to apply the Pearce presumption where the district court reimposed the original sentence after remand despite reversal on one count by the court of appeals).
cited
Cited "see"
Castleglen, Inc., a California Corporation and Larry B. Harvey, an Individual, Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants-Appellants v. Resolution Trust Corporation, as Conservator for Commonwealth Federal Savings Association, and as Receiver of Commonwealth Savings Association Klein Financial Corporation, a California Corporation and Robert N. Klein, Ii, an Individual, Defendants-Counterclaimants-Appellees, Santa Fe Apartments, Ltd., a Utah Limited Partnership Busch Management Co., a Utah Corporation and Western States Title Company, Defendants-Counterclaimants. Emerson Realty & Management v. Castleglen, Inc., a California Corporation, Resolution Trust Corporation, as Conservator for Commonwealth Federal Savings Association, and as Receiver of Commonwealth Savings Association, a Texas Savings and Loan Association Klein Financial Corporation, a California Corporation Robert N. Klein, Ii, an Individual Santa Fe Apartments, Ltd., a Utah Limited Partnership and Busch Management Company, a Utah Corporation
See Mainland Savings Association v. Riverfront Associates, Ltd., 872 F.2d 955 , 956 (10th Cir.1989) (per curiam), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 235 , 107 L.Ed.2d 186 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Castleglen, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp.
See Mainland Savings Association v. Riverfront Associates, Ltd., 872 F.2d 955 , 956 (10th Cir.1989) (per curiam), ce rt. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 235 , 107 L.Ed.2d 186 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gerald Vontsteen, A/K/A Skip Vontsteen
(2×)
See United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9, 15 (1st Cir.) (en banc) (plurality), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 233 , 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989); Kelly v. Neubert, 898 F.2d 15, 16 (3d Cir.1990); United States v. Busic, 639 F.2d 940 , 951 n. 12 (3d Cir.1981); United States v. Gray, 852 F.2d 136, 138 (4th Cir.1988); United States v. Bay, 820 F.2d 1511, 1513 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Hagler, 709 F.2d 578 (9th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sebastian
Finally, it is well established that claims brought by individual Indians and their representatives are not cognizable under the Non-intercourse Act; see, e.g., United States v. Dann, 873 F.2d 1189, 1195 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S. Ct. 234 , 107 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Shawn L. Binford
United States v. Shue, 825 F.2d 1111, 1114 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 956 , 108 S.Ct. 351 , 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987); see also United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9, 14 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 233 , 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ray
States v. Shite, 825 F.2d 1111, 1114 (7th Cir.1987); see also United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9, 14 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 233 , 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989).- The term "sentencing package,” however, is not to be found in any statute or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lilly
See also United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9, 16 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 233 , 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989) (defendant "has no legitimate expectation of finality in the original sentences when he has placed those sentenced] in issue by direct appeal and has not completed serving a valid sentence”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe of Indians v. Town of Southbury
Compare United States v. Dann, 873 F.2d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S. Ct. 234 , 107 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
James Reeves Contractor, Inc. v. United States
See also Gonce v. Veterans Administration, 872 F.2d 995, 999 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 234 , 107 L.Ed.2d 186 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Paul R. Peterson Construction, Inc. v. Arizona State Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund
Co. v. United States, 169 F.2d 102, 112 (8th Cir.1948) (contract enforcement action brought under 40 U.S.C. § 270a and b); see also Rosenbaum v. Davis Iron Works, Inc., 669 F.Supp. 813 (E.D.Mich.1987), aff'd in part and reversed in part, 871 F.2d 1088 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 235 , 107 L.Ed.2d 186 (1989) (action to compel distribution of assets in ERISA pension plan).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bruce Foxworthy v. Hiland Dairy Company
See, e.g., Middlewest Motor Freight Bureau v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 867 F.2d 458 , 460 (8th Cir.) (when most shipments involved supply contracts or other arrangements entered into prior to shipment, chemical company intended for its products to continue on in interstate commerce), ce rt. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 234 , 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989); Baird v. Wagoner Transp.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Parrett v. American Ship Building Company
We held that the 1959 plan precluded an amendment that would allow money once contributed to be reclaimed, because "[a]n agreement that provides that an act can occur in no event and under no circumstances cannot be converted into one that permits the act by a series of amendments that first deletes the reference to the prohibition and then adds a provision permitting the forbidden act." Id. at 123 ; see also Rosenbaum v. Davis Iron Works, Inc., 669 F.Supp. 813, 819 (E.D.Mich.1987) (where pension plan states that no funds contributed to trust nor assets of trust shall ever revert to or be made…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Parrett v. American Ship Building Co.
We held that the 1959 plan precluded an amendment that would allow money once contributed to be reclaimed, because “[a]n agreement that provides that an act can occur in no event and under no circumstances cannot be converted into one that permits the act by a series of amendments that first deletes the reference to the prohibition and then adds a provision permitting the forbidden act.” Id. at 123 ; see also Rosenbaum v. Davis Iron Works, Inc., 669 F.Supp. 813, 819 (E.D.Mich.1987) (where pension plan states that no funds contributed to trust nor assets of trust shall ever revert to or be …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Beynon
(2×)
See also United States v. Molinares Charris, 822 F.2d 1213, 1221-22 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 233 , 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989); Wright-Barker, 784 F.2d at 173-74 (no reversible error where matter contained in report was cumulative of other evidence and author was cross-examined); State v. Rutchik, 116 Wis.2d 61 , 341 N.W.2d 639, 648 (1984); People v. Johnson, 100 Mich.App. 594 , 300 N.W.2d 332, 335 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rafael Jesus Dominguez, United States v. Daniel Joseph Maravilla
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); see also United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9 (1st Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 233 , 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Camen
v.
Safeco Insurance Company of America
v.
Safeco Insurance Company of America
No. 88-1931.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 10, 1989.
493 U.S. 890
Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.