green
Positive treatment
7.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mann
See United States v. Hart, 70 F.3d 854, 859 (“Generally, an indictment may not charge a single criminal offense in several counts without offending the rule against ‘multiplicity’ and implicating the double jeopardy clause.” quoting United States v. Busacca, 936 F.2d 232, 239 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 985 , 112 S.Ct. 595 , 116 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991)).
cited
Cited "see"
Edward Spreitzer v. James M. Schomig, Warden
See Spreitzer v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 985 , 112 S.Ct. 594 , 116 L.Ed.2d 618 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Spreitzer, Edward v. Schomig, James M.
See Spreitzer v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 985 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States of America v. Clayton Anthony Davis
(2×)
ERICKSON. 2 "[L]aw enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991) (quotation omitted); see generally United States v. McKines, 933 F.2d 1412, 1415-19 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 985 (1991). 3 "Officer McFadden 'seized' petitioner and …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Clayton Davis
Although we agree with Davis that conduct after an investigative stop begins cannot supply the reasonable suspicion needed to justify the stop, see, e.g., United 2 “[L]aw enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991) (quotation omitted); see gene…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rogelio Galvan-Muro
See United States v. McKines, 933 F.2d 1412, 1426 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 985 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rogelio Galvan-Muro
See United States v. McKines, 933 F.2d 1412, 1426 (8th Cir.) (en bane), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 985 , 112 S.Ct. 593 , 116 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Huffington v. Nuth
See Huffington v. Maryland, 502 U.S. 985 , 112 S.Ct. 593 , 116 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cargill v. Turpin
(2×)
See United States v. Cross, 928 F.2d 1030, 1052 (11th Cir.) ("It is well-established that the improper admission of co-conspirator hearsay, like other Confrontation Clause errors, is subject to the harmless error rule ...."), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 985 , 112 S.Ct. 594 , 116 L.Ed.2d 618 (1991) and 502 U.S. 1060 , 112 S.Ct. 941 , 117 L.Ed.2d 112 (1992); Cumbie v. Singletary, 991 F.2d 715, 724-25 (11th Cir.) (applying Brecht standard for harmless error after finding Confrontation Clause violation based on Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 , 108 S.Ct. 2798 , 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988)), cert. denied, 510 U.S…
cited
Cited "see"
Edward Spreitzer v. Howard A. Peters, Iii, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections and Richard B. Gramley, Warden, Pontiac Correctional Center
See Spreitzer v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 985 , 112 S.Ct. 594 , 116 L.Ed.2d 618 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Daniel M. Paradies, the Paradies Shops, Inc., Paradies Midfield Corporation, Ira Jackson
See United States v. Busacca, 936 F.2d 232, 239 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 985 , 112 S.Ct. 595 , 116 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Paradies
See United States v. Busacca, 936 F.2d 232, 239 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 985 , 112 S.Ct. 595 , 116 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ramiro Mesa-Farias
See United States v. Pollock, 926 F.2d 1044, 1050 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 985 , 112 S.Ct. 593 , 116 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991) (a jury could reasonably conclude that drug smuggler would not entrust shipment to outsider).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Linda Sue Bryson
See, e.g., United States v. McKines, 933 F.2d 1412, 1426 (8th Cir.1991) (en banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 985 , 112 S.Ct. 593 , 116 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Linda Sue Bryson, Also Known as Linda Sue Campbell, Also Known as Linda Nolting, Also Known as Karen Nolting, Also Known as Linda Sue Vehlewald, United States of America v. Henrietta Furnish, Also Known as Hank, United States of America v. Ronnie Furnish
See, e.g., United States v. McKines, 933 F.2d 1412, 1426 (8th Cir.1991) (en banc ), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 985 , 112 S.Ct. 593 , 116 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Butler
“The rule is well-established that an experienced narcotics agent may testify about the significance of certain conduct or methods of operation unique to the drug distribution business.... ” United States v. Washington, 44 F.3d 1271, 1283 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2011 , 131 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1995); see also United States v. Cross, 928 F.2d 1030, 1050 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 985 , 112 S.Ct. 594 , 116 L.Ed.2d 618 (1991); United States v. Thomas, 676 F.2d 531, 538 (11th Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. George David McManus
See also United States v. McKines, 933 F.2d 1412, 1419 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 985 (1991) (focusing on the nature of police officer's questioning to determine whether a seizure had occurred).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. George David McManus
See also United States v. McKines, 933 F.2d 1412, 1419 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 985 , 112 S.Ct. 593 , 116 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991) (focusing on the nature of police officer’s questioning to determine whether a seizure had occurred).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
UNITED STATES of America v. Darus H. ZEHRBACH, Appellant in No. 93-7477. Alex A. Mervis, Appellant in No. 93-7493
(2×)
Where a party has not made a clear, specific objection to the charge that he alleges is erroneous at trial, he waives the issue on appeal “unless the error was so fundamental and highly prejudicial as to constitute plain error.” Bennis v. Gable, 823 F.2d 723, 727 (3d Cir.1987) (internal quotation omitted); see also United States v. Santos, 932 F.2d 244, 250-53 (3d Cir.) (examining the court’s failure to define the burden of proof applicable to a duress defense for plain error where the party objected to the court's failure to give the defendant's proposed duress instruction), cert. denie…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. State
Compare United States v. Busacca, 936 F.2d 232 (6th Cir.) (holding that predicate acts of misappropriating six checks in 2 1/2 months from health and pension funds over which the defendant had control was sufficient to establish continuity where Busacca had the *881 ability to control disbursement of monies from those funds), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 985 , 112 S.Ct. 595 , 116 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991); State v. Lucas, 600 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 1992) (holding that evidence of a series of related fraudulent activities which occurred over a six-month period can demonstrate "closed-ended continuity").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Zeichick
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 91-711.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 2, 1991.
502 U.S. 985
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.