green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
12.1 score
“defendant's involvement in the operations of the enterprise was so pervasive that his knowledge of its illegal nature became reasonably certain”
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Leonard A. Pelullo
Tafollo-Cardenas, 897 F.2d at 980 (prosecutor must either state the exception as grounds for the admissibility or district court must find that the statement met requirements of the rule in order for appellate court to consider admissibility of statement under 803(24)); but cf. United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1127 (1st Cir.1989) (“If the trier incorrectly admits evidence under a hearsay exception, we will not reverse so long as the material was properly admissible for the same purpose under a different rule of evidence”), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1300 , 108 L.Ed.2d 4…
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Lee J. Klein
defendant's involvement in the operations of the enterprise was so pervasive that his knowledge of its illegal nature became reasonably certain
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Holmquist
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Beginning with the premise that "the concerns which undergird Luce and ____ Griffin control here," id. at 1116, we determined that: _______ ___ Because Nivica did not take the stand, or ask for voir dire, his exact testimony remains, in the Luce phrase, "unknowable." The ____ alleged harm is "wholly speculative," both because (a) the judge, in the give-and-take of live testimony, might have changed his mind and confined cross-examination more closely, and (b) on this record, we have no way of knowing the extent to which the government would have sought to cross- question Nivica (if at all) abo…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Goodchild
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
As we said in _____ ______ Nivica: "There is no pat formula for such proof; factual ______ circumstances may signal fraudulent intent in ways as diverse as the manifestations of fraud itself." Id. at 1113. ___ We now examine the evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Goodchild
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
As we said in Nivica: "There is no pat formula for such proof; factual circumstances may signal fraudulent intent in ways as diverse as the manifestations of fraud itself." Id. at 1113.
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Mimless
See United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1125 (1st Cir. 1989) (arguments regarding the inadequacies of summaries “go to the completeness of the underlying documents, affecting the weight rather than the admissibility of the government’s summaries”), cert, denied, 494 U.S. 1005 (1990). 3 The same was true of “exhibit X,” a thirty-four page bar chart depicting the hours the defendant billed Medicaid each day from March 15, 1993, to December 15, 1995, which was used as a chalk at trial.
discussed
Cited "see"
Cosgrove v. Board of Education of the Niskayuna Central School District
See Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071, 1078-79 (2d Cir.1988), vacated sub nom., Sobol v. Burr, 492 U.S. 902 , 109 S.Ct. 3209 , 106 L.Ed.2d 560 (1989), reaff'd, Burr v. Sobol, 888 F.2d 258 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1298 , 108 L.Ed.2d 475 (1990) (child has no right to demand public education beyond age twenty-one); Board of Educ., Oak Park & River Forest H.S., Dist. 200 v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 79 F.3d 654 , 656 (7th Cir.1996) (“the Act entitles disabled individuals to special education assistance only until they reach the age of 21”); Parents of Student W. v.…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Raul Trujillo, Francisco Nelson Fuentes
See United States v. Beasley, 72 F.3d 1518, 1525 (11th Cir.) (citing United States v. Elkins, 885 F.2d 775, 783 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1300 , 108 L.Ed.2d 477 (1990)), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1027 , 116 S.Ct. 2570 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1086 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Trujillo
See United States v. Beasley, 72 F.3d 1518 , 1525 (11th Cir.) (citing United States v. Elkins, 885 F.2d 775, 783 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 (1990)), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1027 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Trujillo
See United States v. Beasley, 72 F.3d 1518, 1525 (11th Cir.) (citing United States v. Elkins, 885 F.2d 775, 783 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1300 , 108 L.Ed.2d 477 (1990)), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1027 , 116 S.Ct. 2570 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1086 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Croft
See United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1117 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sawyer
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Berger, Weinstein's Evidence 1006 ____________________ (1983)); see United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110 , 1125 ___ _____________ ______ (1st Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 (1990); United _____ ______ ______ States v. Sorrentino, 726 F.2d 876, 884 (1st Cir. 1984). ______ __________ When a court admits such summaries, [c]are must be taken to insure that summaries accurately reflect the contents -62- 62 of the underlying documents and do not function as pedagogical devices that unfairly emphasize part of the proponent's proof or create the impression that disputed facts have been conc…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sawyer
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence § 1006 (1983)); see United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1125 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1300 , 108 L.Ed.2d 477 (1990); United States v. Sorrentino, 726 F.2d 876, 884 (1st Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Labarre v. Shepard
See *501 United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1127 (1st Cir.1989) (no reversal where trial court admits evidence on an incorrect basis, if properly admissible for same purpose under different rule of evidence), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1300 , 108 L.Ed.2d 477 (1990); cf. Ticketmaster-New York, Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201, 204 (1st Cir.1994) (appellate court free to affirm the district court’s judgment on any independently sufficient ground manifest in the record).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Tyrone Eugene Johnson, A/K/A Jap, United States of America v. Kevin Terrell Jackson
In short, we can make no meaningful review because Jackson's exact testimony and its context remain "unknowable." Id. at 41 ; see United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1115-17 (1st Cir.1989) (applying Luce to in limine ruling of the district court that if defendant testified, cross-examination would not be limited to issues presented on direct examination), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 (1990); see also United States v. Johnson, 903 F.2d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir.) (applying Luce to in limine ruling of the district court that if defendant testified, he would be required to try on or hold up certain …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dave Chinazor Chigbo
See United States v. Elkins, 885 F.2d 775, 783 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1300 , 108 L.Ed.2d 477 (1990); United States v. Rey, 811 F.2d 1453, 1460 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 830 , 108 S.Ct. 103 , 98 L.Ed.2d 63 (1987). 2 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Holmquist
See United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1115 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1800 , 108 L.Ed.2d 477 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Christian Goodchild
See United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1113-15 (1st Cir.1989), ce rt. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1300 , 108 L.Ed.2d 477 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Urena
See United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1123 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Paulino
See United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1127 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1300 , 108 L.Ed.2d 477 (1990); cf. Polyplastics, Inc. v. Transconex, Inc., 827 F.2d 859, 860-61 (1st Cir.1987) (explaining that an appellate court is not wed to the trial court’s reasoning, but is free to affirm a judgment on any independently sufficient ground made manifest in the record).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Arthur Sutton
Accord United States v. Lewin, 900 F.2d 145, 147 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Polowichak, 783 F.2d 410, 413 (4th Cir.1986); United States v. Callahan, 588 F.2d 1078, 1086 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979); United States v. Gonzales, 424 F.2d 1055, 1056 (9th Cir.1970) (per curiam); United States v. Witt, 215 F.2d 580, 584 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 887 , 75 S.Ct. 207 , 99 L.Ed. 697 (1954); see generally United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110 , 1123 & n. 9 (1st Cir.1989) (discussing practice), ce rt. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1300 , 1…
cited
Cited "see"
Tarek H. Elgabri, M.D. v. Mary D. Lekas, M.D.
See United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1120 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1300 , 108 L.Ed.2d 477 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
Reynaldo Sosa-Valdespino v. United States
See United States v. Gonzalez-Senti, 886 F.2d 1323 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1299 , 108 L.Ed.2d 476 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
Elgabri v. Lekas, M.D.
See United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d ___ ______________ ______ 1110, 1120 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 _____ ______ (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Frank Church, Carl Louis Coppola
See United States v. Elkins, 885 F.2d 775, 784 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1300 , 108 L.Ed.2d 477 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Corporation
See United States v. ___ _____________ -15- 15 Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1124 (1st Cir. 1989) (citing cases), ______ cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 (1990); New England Enterprises, _____ ______ ________________________ Inc. v. United States, 400 F.2d 58, 71-72 (1st Cir. 1968), ____ _____________ cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1036 (1969). _____ ______ Finally, Young points to two cases which, he says, show that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of embezzlement.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Howard W. Young
See United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1124 (1st Cir.1989) (citing cases), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1300 , 108 L.Ed.2d 477 (1990); New England Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 400 F.2d 58, 71-72 (1st Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1036 , 89 S.Ct. 654 , 21 L.Ed.2d 581 (1969); see also United States v. McGill, 953 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir.1992); United States v. Dockray, 943 F.2d 152, 155 (1st Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
D.B. v. Ocean Township Board of Education
See, e.g., Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071, 1077 (2d Cir.1988) (holding in accord with the weight of authority that employees of the state educational agency, including the Commissioner, may not conduct the due process review at the state level), vacated, 492 U.S. 902 , 109 S.Ct. 3209 , 106 L.Ed.2d 560 , reaff'd, Burr v. Sobol, 888 F.2d 258 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1298 , 108 L.Ed.2d 475 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Barrows v. Bezanson
W einstein et al ., W e i n s t e i n 's E vidence 5 611 [01], at 611-19 (1995); see also Elqabri v. Lekas, 964 F.2d 1255, 1260 (1st Cir. 1992) ("The mode and order of guestioning . . . lies in the trial court's discretion.") (citing United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1120 (1st Cir. 1989), cert, denied, 494 U.S. 1005 (1990)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bond
See, e.g., United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1115-17 (1st Cir.1989) (invoking the Luce doctrine in a case involving a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion in limine to limit the scope of cross-examination of the defendant to the subjects addressed on direct), ce rt. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1300 , 108 L.Ed.2d 477 (1990). 2 While we do not necessarily endorse the holdings of these cases, we do draw from them the principle that Luce is not limited to rulings footed upon Rule 609(a).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bertoli
See Pelullo, 964 F.2d at 204 ; Stick, 730 F.2d at 119 ; see also United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1125 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1300 , 108 L.Ed.2d 477 (1990); Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp., 751 F.2d 1507, 1516 (9th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mavis v. Sobol
See, e.g., Burr by Burr v. Sobol, 888 F.2d 258, 259 . (2nd Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1298 , 108 L.Ed.2d 475 (1990), (Eleventh Amendment not violated where court vacated Commissioner’s decision and reinstated state hearing officer’s decision); Kerr Center Parents Assoc. v. Charles, 897 F.2d 1463, 1469 (9th Cir.1990) (emphasis in original) (“[t]o the extent that the district court ordered the state to comply prospectively with its obligations under the EAHCA,” such order did not .violate the eleventh amendment); Straube, supra, 801 F.Supp. at 1172 (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Heldman ex rel. T.H. v. Sobol
N.Y.Educ.Law § 4404(2); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 276.10 (1991); see also Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071, 1077 (2d Cir.1988) (review by the Commissioner of Education does not satisfy § 1415's impartiality requirement), vacated, 492 U.S. 902 , 109 S.Ct. 3209 , 106 L.Ed.2d 560 reaff’d, Burr v. Sobol, 888 F.2d 258 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1298 , 108 L.Ed.2d 475 (1990). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Heldman v. Sobol
N.Y.Educ.Law § 4404(2); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 276.10 (1991); see also Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071, 1077 (2d Cir.1988) (review by the Commissioner of Education does not satisfy § 1415's impartiality requirement), vacated, 492 U.S. 902 , 109 S.Ct. 3209 , 106 L.Ed.2d 560 reaff'd, Burr v. Sobol, 888 F.2d 258 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1298 , 108 L.Ed.2d 475 (1990) 6 Article III states that "[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases ... [and] Controversies ...," which has been interpreted to mean that federal courts may only hear cases or controversies.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Samuel J. Concemi, United States of America v. Walter Ribeck
If a criminal defendant takes the stand and testifies in his own defense, “his *948 credibility may be impeached and his testimony assailed like that of any other witness, and the breadth of his waiver is determined by the scope of relevant cross-examination.” Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 154-55 , 78 S.Ct. 622, 626-27 , 2 L.Ed.2d 589 (1958); see also United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1117 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 , 110 S.Ct. 1300 , 108 L.Ed.2d 477 (1989).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Molino
See, e.g., United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1121 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005 (1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mason
v.
City of Gastonia, North Carolina
v.
City of Gastonia, North Carolina
No. 89-1109.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 26, 1990.
Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (1)
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.