Arizona v. Kempton, 501 U.S. 1212 (1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Arizona v. Kempton, 501 U.S. 1212 (1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“state hen holder must show that he had the right to enforce the hen at some time prior to the attachment of the federal lien”
42 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 28 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: New Jersey v. United States (In Re Johns) (njd, 1999-10-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) New Jersey v. United States (In Re Johns)
D.N.J. · 1999 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
state hen holder must show that he had the right to enforce the hen at some time prior to the attachment of the federal lien
cited Cited "see" Bank One Ohio Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee of the Albin C. Reitelbach Trust v. United States
6th Cir. · 1996 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, In re Terwilliger’s Catering Plus, Inc., 911 F.2d 1168 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1212 , 111 S.Ct. 2815 , 115 L.Ed.2d 987 (1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Integrated Solutions, Inc. v. Service Support Specialties, Inc.
D.N.J. · 1996 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., In re Terwilliger’s Catering Plus, Inc., 911 F.2d 1168 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1212 , 111 S.Ct. 2815 , 115 L.Ed.2d 987 (1991); In re Hoffman, 65 B.R. 985, 991 (D.R.I.1986); In re Kick-Off, Inc., 82 B.R. 648, 650 (Bankr.D.Mass.), aff'd, 1988 WL 123927 (D.Mass).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pronto Enterprises, Inc. v. United States
W.D. Mo. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., In re Terwilliger’s Catering Plus, Inc., 911 F.2d 1168 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, Ohio, Dep’t of Taxation v. Internal Revenue Serv., 501 U.S. 1212 , 111 S.Ct. 2815 , 115 L.Ed.2d 987 (1991); In re Kick-Off, 82 B.R. 648 (Bankr.D.Mass.1987). *595 The pleadings on appeal address the issue of whether the proceeds are property more comprehensively than did the pleadings presented to the bankruptcy court.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Nicholson v. Promotors on Listings
D. Mass. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Reuber v. Food Chemical News, Inc., 925 F.2d 703, 708-09 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1212 , 111 S.Ct. 2814 , 115 L.Ed.2d 986 (1991) (scientist employed by a firm under contract with the National Cancer Institute was a limited purpose public figure); Clyburn, 903 F.2d at 31 (owner of consulting firm which frequently contracted with the D.C. government was a limited purpose public figure); Trotter, 818 F.2d at 434 (president of a private business involved with labor violence was a limited-purpose public figure).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arizona
v.
Kempton
No. 90-1379.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 10, 1991.
501 U.S. 1212
White.
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 72%
Citer courts: D. New Jersey (1)

Lead Opinion

Ct. App. Ariz. Certio-rari denied.

Dissent

Justice White,

dissenting.

In this case, a reliable informant told police that respondent had cocaine in his truck. Several hours later, the police stopped respondent while he was driving his truck, asked for and received permission from respondent to search the truck, and discovered cocaine. Respondent was subsequently convicted, but the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the search of respondent’s truck was illegal because it did not fall within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement and was not conducted pursuant to a valid investigatory stop. 166 Ariz. 392, 803 P. 2d 113 (1990). The Arizona Supreme Court denied discretionary review.

The Arizona Court of Appeals’ holding in this case is contrary to relevant decisions of this Court, see, e. g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 226-229, 232 (1985); Alabama v. White, 496 U. S. 325 (1990); California v. Carney, 471 U. S. 386, 392 (1985); Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U. S. 259, 261 (1982), and should be reversed. That the decision below was rendered by an intermediate state appellate court should make no difference. The trend in state supreme courts towards discretionary review has[*1213] resulted in the intermediate state appellate courts taking on a large and significant role in the development and application of state and federal law in their respective jurisdictions. This Court should not deny review on the basis of an outdated perception of the role of state intermediate appellate courts.