green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.3 score
“we repeatedly have made clear that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived.”
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
State v. Arroyo
App. 2000); see also State v. Grimes, 295 Mont. 22, 31 , 982 P.2d 1037 (1999) (“when a government informant motivated by personal gain rather than some independent law enforcement purpose provides testimony, a cautionary instruction is the more prudent course of action”), citing People v. Dela Rosa, 644 F.2d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 1980) (“courts have long recognized that the definition of an informer includes persons who provide evidence against a defendant for some personal advantage or vindication, as well as for pay or immunity”); cf. People *570 v. Payton, 3 Cal. 4th 1050 , 1059 and …
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Sean Anderson
we repeatedly have made clear that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Sebe T. Woody
perfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gilley
See United States v. Stanley, 928 F.2d 575, 577 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S.Ct. 141 , 116 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991); see also United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 128 (2d Cir.1999) (stating that the jury could have concluded that the defendant gave “sometimes false and often strained testimony” at trial because he was conscious of his own guilt), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1094 , 120 S.Ct. 830 , 145 L.Ed.2d 698 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Vaughn v. King
See United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S.Ct. 141 , 116 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991). 26 The plaintiffs also object to the court's refusal to admit statements made by Ms. Vaughn prior to trial.
cited
Cited "see"
Vaughn v. King
See United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S.Ct. 141 , 116 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Otto v. Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company
See United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir.) ("We repeatedly have made clear that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived (even where those arguments raise constitutional issues)."), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S.Ct. 141 , 116 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. James Franklin Rounsavall A/K/A Frank Rounsavall
See United States v. Rockelman, 49 F.3d 418, 422 (8th Cir.1995) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(l)(B)(i)). “ ‘[T]he purpose of the money laundering statute is to reach commercial transactions intended (at least in part) to disguise the relationship of the item purchased with the person providing the proceeds and that the proceeds used to make the purchase were obtained from illegal activities.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Sanders, 928 F.2d 940, 946 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S.Ct. 142 , 116 L.Ed.2d 109 (1991)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. James Rounsavall
See United States v. Rockelman, 49 F.3d 418, 422 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(1)(B)(I)). “'[T]he purpose of the money laundering statute is to reach commercial transactions intended (at least in part) to disguise the relationship of the item purchased with the person providing the proceeds and that the proceeds used to make the purchase were obtained from illegal activities.'” Id. (quoting United States v. Sanders, 928 F.2d 940, 946 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 (1991)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lawrence Dalton v. County Board of Commissioners, Aurelia Pucinski, and Bergundy Compton-Day
See United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir.) (party has an obligation to argue grounds and to support the argument with cites to authorities demonstrating why the district court should be reversed), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles Christopher Milton
See United States v. Brooks, 928 F.2d 1403, 1412 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S.Ct. 140 , 116 L.Ed.2d 106 (1991).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Mann
See, e.g., United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376 (7th Cir. 1991) [cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S. Ct. 141 , 116 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ramos
See, e.g., United States v. Stanley, 928 F.2d 575, 577 (2d Cir.) (“the jury [is] entitled to disbelieve [the defendant’s] testimony, and use its disbelief to supplement the other evidence against h[er]”), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S.Ct. 141 , 116 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991); United States v. Tyler, 758 F.2d 66, 69 (2d Cir.1985) (“the jury has a right to consider the defendant’s lack of credibility in reaching its verdict”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Goren v. New Vision International
See Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138 F.3d 277, 301 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 336 , --- L.Ed.2d ---- (1998) (No. 98-179); see also United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir.1991) (stating that "[w]e repeatedly have made clear that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived"), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S.Ct. 141 , 116 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991) 3 The facts alleged in Ms. Goren's complaint are different from those we evaluated in MCM Partners, Inc. v. Andrews-Bartlett & Assocs., Inc.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Goren v. New Vision International, Inc.
See Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138 F.3d 277, 301 (7th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 119 S.Ct. 336 ,-L.Ed.2d -(1998) (No. 98-179); see also United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir.1991) (stating that ”[w]e repeatedly have made clear that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived”), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S.Ct. 141 , 116 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Victor T. Steele v. Robert A. Farley
See, e.g., United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir.) ("We repeatedly have made clear that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived (even where those arguments raise constitutional issues)."), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 (1991). 12 For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court dismissing Steele's petition for relief pursuant to § 2254. 4 * After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary, and the appeal is submitted on the briefs…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Goldstein v. United States Parole Commission
See e.g., Tyler v. United States, 929 F.2d 451 , 453 n. 5 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S.Ct. 142 , 116 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991); Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 771 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Luis Hernando Ramirez
See, e.g., United States v. Stanley, 928 F.2d 575, 577 (2d Cir.) (“the jury [is] entitled to disbelieve [the defendant’s] testimony, and use its disbelief to supplement the other evidence against him” adduced by the government), ce rt. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S.Ct. 141 , 116 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Charles Antoin Novey
See, e.g., United States v. Stanley, 928 F.2d 575, 583 (2d Cir.)(Feinberg, J.) (noting with concern transfer of discretion under Guidelines), ce rt. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S.Ct. 141 , 116 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991); United States v. Kikumura, 918 F.2d 1084, 1119 (3d Cir.l990)(Rosenn, J., concurring) (transfer of discretion to prosecutor permits “manipulation of ... charge and sentencing”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Charles N. Ettien
See Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973); United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir.1984); see also Tyler v. United States, 929 F.2d 451, 453 (9th Cir.) (construing pro se prisoner's claim erroneously brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Aguilar
See, e.g., United States v. Stanley, 928 F.2d 575, 582 (2d Cir.) (“[I]f plea bargains could not alter sentences, most defendants would have little interest in bargaining.”), cer t. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S.Ct. 141 , 116 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Robert Aulicino, Jr., David Cleary, and Louis Ruggiero, Jr.
See, e.g., United States v. Stanley, 928 F.2d 575, 577 (2d Cir.) (“the jury [is] entitled to disbelieve [the defendant’s] testimony, and use its disbelief to supplement the other evidence against him” adduced by the government (emphasis added)), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845 , 112 S.Ct. 141 , 116 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991); United States v. Tyler, 758 F.2d 66, 69 (2d Cir.1985) (“the jury has a right to consider the defendant’s lack of credibility in reaching its verdict”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Brooks
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 90-8333.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1991.
Published
Citer courts: Seventh Circuit (2)
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.