green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
10.6 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1998 ·
…section 2113(a) prohibits entry of a bank with the intent to commit any' felony and in no way limits its application to robberies, burglaries, or felonies not covered under other sections of the act
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Eddie Maes v. John Thomas, Warden and Attorney General of the State of New Mexico
But see Meadows v. Legursky, 904 F.2d 903, 907 (4th Cir.) (en banc) (procedural default defense not raised before magistrate and district court is not waived where state court’s dismissal order was before magistrate), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S.Ct. 523 , 112 L.Ed.2d 534 (1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Stephan Andrew Cox v. State
a judge alone must decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction, but only if that issue is brought before the court before trial
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Askari (Part I - Amended)
section 2113(a) prohibits entry of a bank with the intent to commit any' felony and in no way limits its application to robberies, burglaries, or felonies not covered under other sections of the act
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Askari
section 2113(a) prohibits entry of a bank with the intent to commit any' felony and in no way limits its application to robberies, burglaries, or felonies not covered under other sections of the act
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Marina Zarnes, Michael W. Nietupski, Jeffrey L. Hunter, Benny L. Battles, Michael R. Dionne, Marvin G. Bland, and Thomas J. Nietupski
See United States v. Joshi 896 F.2d 1303 (11th Cir.) (the defendants waived their Sixth Amendment challenge to trial bifurcation by virtue of their counsel’s tactical decision to consent to such a procedure), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S.Ct. 523 , 112 L.Ed.2d 534 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
Hoke v. Thompson
See Meadows v. Legursky, 904 F.2d 903 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S.Ct. 523 , 112 L.Ed.2d 534 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brian G. Tackett v. O.B. Combs
See United States v. Smith, 907 F.2d 42, 45 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 (1990); Holt v. Pitts, 702 F.2d 639, 640-41 (6th Cir.1983) (per curiam). 5 Moreover, the defendant correctly points out that this complaint could have been dismissed on the ground of issue preclusion, as Tackett's duplicate state action was dismissed on the merits prior to the decision in this case.
discussed
Cited "see"
Carper v. DeLand
(2×)
See United States v. Smith, 907 F.2d 42 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 533 (1990); United States v. Pina, 844 F.2d 1 , 5-6 & n. 1 (1st Cir.1988); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
Pendleton Enterprises, Inc. v. Iams Co.
(2×)
See United States v. Smith, 907 F.2d 42 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 533 (1990); United States v. Pina, 844 F.2d 1 , 5-6 & n. 1 (1st Cir.1988); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Richard Bombela
Parker, 5 F.3d 1328 ; see United States v. Selfa, 918 F.2d 749, 751 (9th Cir.) (concluding that "the elements of the crimes of which the defendant was previously convicted, and not the particular conduct of the defendant on the day the crimes were committed, should control"), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 (1990). 14 We are not persuaded by Bombela.
discussed
Cited "see"
Parks v. United States
(2×)
See Mitchell v. United States, 569 A.2d 177, 180 (D.C.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 532 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Scott v. United States
(2×)
See Mitchell v. United States, 569 A.2d 177, 183 (D.C.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 532 (1990); Poteat v. United States, 559 A.2d 334, 336 (D.C.1989); Freeman v. United States, 495 A.2d 1183, 1187 (D.C.1985); Carter v. United States, 475 A.2d 1118, 1126 (D.C.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1226 , 105 S.Ct. 1222 , 84 L.Ed.2d 362 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Joe Louis Wise, Sr. v. David Williams Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia
See Meadows v. Legursky, 904 F.2d 903 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc) (“[C]onsistent or regular application of a state’s procedural default rules does not mean undeviating adherence to such rule admitting of no exception.” (citing Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. 401 , 109 S.Ct. 1211 , 103 L.Ed.2d 435 (1989))), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S.Ct. 523 , 112 L.Ed.2d 534 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Todd Summerlin Alexander
In deciding McDougherty, we interpreted the earlier version of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 but, noting that the revised commentary continued to list robbery as a crime of violence, we indicated that the result would have been no different under section 4B1.2 as amended. 920 F.2d at 573 n. 3; see United States v. Selfa, 918 F.2d 749, 751 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 521 (1990) (under the 1989 version of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, federal bank robbery is a crime of violence) 4 Alexander contends that, under Taylor 's categorical approach, robbery as defined by Cal.Penal Code §§ 211-12 does not qualify as…
discussed
Cited "see"
Burgess v. United States
See Mitchell v. United States, 569 A.2d 177, 186 (D.C.App.) (present bodily condition), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 532 (1990); Gezmu v. United States, 375 A.2d 520, 522 (D.C.App.1977) (state of mind); Nicholson v. United States, 368 A.2d 561, 564 (D.C.App.1977) (excited utterance). .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. William Hurd Wright
To obtain a conviction for robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), the Government must show the defendant took property “by force and violence, or by intimidation.” “Intimidation means the threat of force.” United States v. Jones, 932 F.2d 624, 625 (7th Cir.1991); see United States v. Selfa, 918 F.2d 749, 751 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 532 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harris v. United States
(2×)
This is done based on “the gravity of the misconduct, its relationship to the issue of guilt, the effect of any corrective action by the trial judge, and the strength of the government’s case.” Gray, supra, 589 A.2d at 916 (quoting Dixon v. United States, 565 A.2d 72, 75 (D.C.1989)); accord, Mitchell v. United States, 569 A.2d 177 , 183 n. 5 (D.C.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 532 (1990); Sherrod v. United States, 478 A.2d 644, 655 (D.C.1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Gray v. United States
See Mitchell v. United States, 569 A.2d 177, 180 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 532 (D.C.1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Krijger
See, e.g., United States v. Khorrami, 895 F.2d 1186, 1192-93 (7th Cir.) (among multiple factors judge may review are words themselves, time of making alleged threat, maker’s manner of speaking, format of alleged threat, [spoken or written], tone of voice of speaker, prior or current relationship— if any—between maker and target and any other relevant facts that provide more complete overview of circumstances in which threatening statement made), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S. Ct. 522 , 112 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. EJY
See also U.S. v. Khorrami, 895 F.2d 1186, 1192 (7th Cir.), ( cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S.Ct. 522 , 112 L.Ed.2d 533 (1990)). [30] 144 Wash.2d 472 , 28 P.3d 720 (2001). [31] J.M., 144 Wash.2d at 479 n. 4, 28 P.3d 720 . [32] Nor do we find E.J.Y.'s supplemental authority, Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Martin v. Crabtree
(2×)
See 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a); see also United States v. Selfa, 918 F.2d 749 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 532 (1990).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Nelson v. United States
(4×)
See Hunter v. United States, 606 A.2d 139, 144 (D.C.) (quoting Miller v. Avirom, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 369-70 , 384 F.2d 319, 321-22 (1967)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 509 , 121 L.Ed.2d 444 (1992); see also Mitchell v. United States, 569 A.2d 177, 180 (D.C.) (appellant is bound by position that his counsel took at trial), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 532 (1990).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jose P. Floresca
(4×)
See, e.g., United States v. Bledsoe, 898 F.2d 430 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 532 (1990); Moore v. United States, 512 F.2d 1255 (4th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jose S. Chacon v. Tana Wood
See also United States v. Joshi, 896 F.2d 1303, 1309 (11th Cir.) (acknowledging that the Court Interpreters Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1827 , was intended to protect the existing constitutional rights of non-English speaking criminal defendants), cer t. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S.Ct. 523 , 112 L.Ed.2d 534 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Brett Cronkhite
See United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1352 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 321 (1991); see also United States v. Khorrami, 895 F.2d 1186, 1194 (7th Cir.) (in reviewing the admissibility of relevant, potentially prejudicial evidence, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to proponent, maximizing the probative and minimizing the prejudicial), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Caton v. Maze
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 907 F.2d 42, 44-45 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 533 (1990); United States; ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Caton v. Maze
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 907 F.2d 42, 44-45 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 533 (1990); Unit ed States; ex rel.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Lyons v. United States
(4×)
See, e.g., Mitchell v. United States, 569 A.2d 177 , 183 n. 5 (D.C.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986 , 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 532 (1990) (setting forth “substantial prejudice” standard for reviewing claims of prosecutorial misconduct when defendant objected at trial).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Benito P. Davila
See, e.g., United States v. Grimes, 899 F.2d 731, 732-33 (8th Cir.) (upholding denial of reduction even though defendant gave government information on other criminal activity), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 532 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Willard Cortez Robinson
See also United States v. Selfa, 918 F.2d 749, 751 (9th Cir.) (observing that the elements of the crimes of which the defendant was previously convicted, and not the particular conduct of the defendant on the day the crimes were committed, should control the interpretation of § 4B1.1), cert, denied, — U.S. , 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 532 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mitchell v. United States
Reed v. United States, 452 A.2d 1173, 1180 (D.C.1987), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 839 , 104 S.Ct. 132 , 78 L.Ed.2d 127 (1983); see also Mitchell v. United States, 569 A.2d 177, 184-85 (D.C.) (prior statements admissible to rehabilitate witness), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 521 , 112 L.Ed.2d 532 (1990); Coltrane v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 295 , 303, 418 F.2d 1131, 1140 (1969) (same).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Carlos Fernando Padilla
SeeU.S.S.G. § 4B1.1; see also United States v. Selfa, 918 F.2d 749, 752 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 521 (1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Worthen
v.
Oklahoma
v.
Oklahoma
No. 90-5383.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 26, 1990.
Published
Citer courts: Third Circuit (2) · Court of Appeals of Texas (1)
Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.