green
Positive treatment
8.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Joseph Rollin v. Christine Cook
See Shedelbower v. Estelle, 885 F.2d 570, 574 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1092 , 111 S.Ct. 975 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1991); Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 , 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004). 3.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Williamson
(2×)
See State v. Payne, 327 N.C. 194, 202 , 394 S.E.2d 158, 162 (1990) (“[T]he purpose of discovery under our statutes is to protect the defendant from unfair surprise[.]”), cert. denied, Payne v. North Carolina, 498 U.S. 1092 , 112 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cook
(2×)
See State v. Payne, 327 N.C. 194, 202 , 394 S.E.2d 158, 162 (1990) ("[T]he purpose of discovery under our statutes is to protect the defendant from unfair surprise by the introduction of evidence he cannot anticipate."), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1092 , 111 S.Ct. 977 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1062 (1991). ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 635 S.E.2d 520, 526-27 (2006) disc. rev. denied, 361 N.C. 222 , 642 S.E.2d 709 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Castrejon
See State v. Payne, 327 N.C. 194, 202 , 394 S.E.2d 158, 162 (1990) (“[T]he purpose of discovery under our statutes is to protect the defendant from unfair surprise by the introduction of evidence he cannot anticipate.”), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1092 , 112 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Jones
Accord, State v. Payne, 327 N.C. 194 , 394 S.E.2d 158 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1092 , 112 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Shewchun v. U.S. I.N.S.
See Prieto v. Gluch, 913 F.2d 1159, 1164 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Luis Arango-Alvarez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
See Prieto v. Gluch, 913 F.2d 1159, 1161 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sergio Moreno-Flores, United States of America v. Sergio Alberto Rodriguez-Molina
(2×)
See Shedelbower v. Estelle, 885 F.2d 570, 573 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1092 , 111 S.Ct. 975 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Henry
See United States v. Romero, 897 F.2d 47, 53 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1010 , 110 S.Ct. 3253 , 111 L.Ed.2d 762 (1990), and cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1092 , 111 S.Ct. 975 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1991); United States v. Leonard, 817 F.Supp. 286, 299 (E.D.N.Y.1992). 7 .
cited
Cited "see"
Klenny Delourdes Umana v. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service
See Prieto v. Gluch, 913 F.2d 1159, 1162-64 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rafael Romero v. United States
See United States v. Romero, 897 F.2d 47 (2d Cir.) (affirming conviction on direct appeal), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1010 , 110 S.Ct. 3253 , 111 L.Ed.2d 762 (1990), 498 U.S. 1092 , 111 S.Ct. 975 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Joromi Bazuaye v. Joseph Bogan
See Prieto v. Gluch, 913 F.2d 1159, 1164 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez
See id. (citing ___ ___ United States v. Rodriguez Cortes, 949 F.2d 532, 539 (1st Cir. 1991)); _____________ ________________ see also United States v. Echeverri, 982 F.2d 675, 678 (1st Cir. 1993) ___ ____ _____________ _________ ("culpability of a defendant's presence hinges upon whether the circumstances fairly imply participatory involvement").
discussed
Cited "see"
U.S v. Algarin-Rosa
See id. (citing United States v. Rodriguez Cortes, 949 F.2d 532, 539 (1st Cir. 1991)); see also United States v. Echeverri, 982 F.2d 675, 678 (1st Cir. 1993) ("culpability of a defendant's presence hinges upon whether the circumstances fairly imply participatory involvement").
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jose Algarin-Rosa, United States of America v. Eduardo Gonzalez-Rodriguez
See id. (citing United States v. Rodriguez Cortes, 949 F.2d 532, 539 (1st Cir. 1991)); see also United States v. Echeverri, 982 F.2d 675, 678 (1st Cir. 1993) ("culpability of a defendant's presence hinges upon whether the circumstances fairly imply participatory involvement").
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Clinton Howard
See United States v. Marshall, 910 F.2d 1241, 1245 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1092 , 111 S.Ct. 976 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Consequently, resolution of this motion turns on the narrow issue of whether the filing of an INS detainer causes a sentenced offender to be “in the custody of the INS.” In Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir.1993), the Second Circuit acknowledged that “the clear majority view” is “that an INS detainer constitutes (1) a notice that future INS custody will be sought at the conclusion of a prisoner’s pending confinement by another jurisdiction, and (2) a request for prior notice regarding the termination of that confinement, and thus does not result in present confinement by the I…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Thomas
Thus, the § 851(a)(1) notice requirement applies "to situations in which a convicted defendant's statutory minimum or maximum penalty is enhanced under [21 U.S.C § 841]." United States v. Wallace, 895 F.2d 487, 490 (8th Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Marshall, 910 F.2d 1241, 1244-45 (5th Cir. 1990) ("the notice requirement applies to persons convicted of an offense under Title 21 when the Government seeks to enhance the maximum penalties under the recidivist provision of that statute"), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1092 , 111 S. Ct. 976 , 112 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bell
v.
California
v.
California
No. 90-5819.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 19, 1991.
Published
Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.