green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
8.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1999 ·
…the doctrine of judicial estoppel serves a consistently clear and undisputed jurisprudential purpose: to protect the integrity of the courts.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Lake
evidence at the joint trial of alleged co-conspirators that, because of the alleged conspiratorial nature of the illegal activity, would have been admissible at a separate trial of the moving defendant is neither spillover nor prejudicial.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Browning Mfg v. Salisbury
the doctrine of judicial estoppel serves a consistently clear and undisputed jurisprudential purpose: to protect the integrity of the courts.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Santiago
See United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir.1993), ce rt. denied, 511 U.S. 1042 , 114 S.Ct. 1565 , 128 L.Ed.2d 211 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Franza v. Stinson
United States v. Carson, 702 F.2d 351, 361 (2d Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1108 , 103 S.Ct. 2456 , 2457, 77 L.Ed.2d 1335 (1983); accord, e.g., United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 337 (2d Cir. 1993) (“[Defendant who makes a sufficiency challenge bears a heavy burden.”), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1042 , 1096, 114 S.Ct. 1565 , 1864, 128 L.Ed.2d 211 (1994); United States v. Strauss, 999 F.2d 692, 696 (2d Cir.1993) (burden on defendant is “ ‘very heavy’ ” and all inferences must be drawn in the government’s favor); Carromero v. Strack, 1998 WL 849321 at *4; Fernande…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Berger
See United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir.1993) (“Evidence at the joint trial of alleged cocon-spirators that, because of the alleged conspiratorial nature of the illegal activity, would have been admissible at a separate trial of the -moving defendant is neither spillover nor prejudicial.”), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1042 , 114 S.Ct. 1565 , 128 L.Ed.2d 211 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Taylor
See United States v. McCaskey, 9 F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1042 , 128 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Williams
See United States v. McCaskey, 9 F.3d 368, 376 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (“[Q]uestions of fact capable of resolution by the district court upon proper objection at sentencing can never constitute plain error.”), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1042 , 114 S. Ct. 1565 , 128 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Ealy v. State
See United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315 (2nd Cir. 1993), cert. denied 511 U.S. 1042 , 114 S.Ct.1565, 128 L.Ed.2d 211 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Spy Factory, Inc.
See Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 210 , 107 S.Ct. 1702, 1708 , 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987) (joint trials are necessary to avoid “randomly favoring the last-tried defendants who have the advantage of knowing the prosecution’s case.”) Because of the stated preference in the federal system for the joint trial of defendants indicted together, see United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied 511 U.S. 1042 , 114 S.Ct. 1565 , 128 L.Ed.2d 211 (1994), and because the evidence of the crimes charged is highly integrated, I do not find that the defendant has proven that the mer…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bellomo
Casamento, 887 F.2d at 1149 (quoting United States v. Carpentier, 689 F.2d 21, 27 (2d Cir.1982)); accord, United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1042 , 114 S.Ct. 1565 , 128 L.Ed.2d 211 (1994); United States v. Friedman, 854 F.2d 535, 563 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1004 , 109 S.Ct. 1637 , 104 L.Ed.2d 153 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Calvin Delpit
We made clear the distinction between accessories after-the-fact and aiders and abettors in United States v. Brown, 33 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir.1994): " 'The very definition of the crime [accessory after the fact] also requires that the felony not be in progress when the assistance is rendered because then [the person] who renders assistance would aid in the commission of the offense and be guilty as a principal.' ” Id. at 1004 (quoting United States v. Barlow, 470 F.2d 1245, 1252-53 (D.C.Cir.1972)); see United States v. Innie, 7 F.3d 840, 852 (9th Cir.1993) ("Unlike one who aids or abets a crime …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Calvin Lucien Delpit, Also Known as Monster, United States of America v. Dennell Malone, United States of America v. Jermaine Dana Saunders, United States of America v. Zackarrie Emil Prado, United States of America v. Lavern Thomas, United States of America v. Jai Anthony Jones, United States of America v. Chanise Janelle Lynn
(2×)
See Poore, 594 F.2d at 41 (noting that government "is not required to accept defendant's proffered general stipulation of conviction of felony ... in lieu of offering proof thereon") (citing United States v. Smith, 520 F.2d 544, 548 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 925 , 97 S.Ct. 328 , 50 L.Ed.2d 294 (1976)) 7 Compare § 1958(a) with the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (a), which provides in part: (a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to-- (1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or…
discussed
Cited "see"
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4598, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7402 United States of America v. Prakash Man Shrestha, Cross-Appellee
See United States v. Innie, 7 F.3d 840, 847-48 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming as not clearly erroneous a district court’s ruling that defendant’s pretrial confession did not render him eligible for a § 3E1.1 reduction where he pled not guilty, refused to discuss his case with a probation officer, and made no statement evidencing remorse at the sentencing hearing), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1567 , 128 L.Ed.2d 212 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence Edward BROWNSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant
See United States v. Innie, 7 F.3d 840, 846-47 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1567 , 128 L.Ed.2d 212 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Steven James Fleener, United States of America v. James Edward Fleener
"The district court's determination that [James] is a career offender, as an interpretation of the Guidelines, is subject to de novo review." United States v. Becker, 919 F.2d 568, 570 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 911 (1991); accord United States v. Innie, 7 F.3d 840, 849 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1567 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Alfonso Valencia
See United States v. Innie, 7 F.3d 840 (9th Cir.1993) (possession with intent to distribute), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1567 (1994); United States v. Negrete-Gonzales, 966 F.2d 1277, 1281-82 (9th Cir.1992) (conspiracy) (citing United States v. Melchor-Lopez, 627 F.2d 886, 890-91 (9th Cir.1980)).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. David Kaho
See United States v. Innie, 7 F.3d 840, 848 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1567 (1994)
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jose Luis Banda-Gutierrez
See United States v. Innie, 7 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1567 (1994); Martinez, 967 F.2d at 1345-46 . 59 AFFIRMED. * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Olivieri
See, e.g., United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 334 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1042 , 114 S.Ct. 1565 , 128 L.Ed.2d 211 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Manganiello v. City of New York
Nonetheless, “[i]n reviewing a challenge to a trial judge’s conduct, we determine not whether the trial judge’s conduct left something to be desired," but rather, in light of the record as a whole, “whether the judge’s behavior was so prejudicial that it denied [a party] a fair, as opposed to a perfect, trial.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 343 (2d Cir.1993), cer t. denied, 511 U.S. 1042 , 114 S.Ct. 1565 , 128 L.Ed.2d 211 (1994); United States v. Manko, 979 F.2d 900, 905-06 (2d Cir.1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 903 , 113 S.Ct…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In the Matter of Jsb
See, e.g., United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 333 (2d Cir.1993) (New York City medical examiner's written autopsy report is admissible as public record under Fed.R.Evid. 803(8)), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1042 , 114 S.Ct. 1565 , 128 L.Ed.2d 211 (1994); State v. Davis, 141 S.W.3d 600, 630 (Tenn.2004) ("The autopsy reports are admissible hearsay under Rules 803(6) and 803(8) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence."), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1156 , 125 S.Ct. 1306 , 161 L.Ed.2d 123 (2005); Tex. Workers' Comp.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In the Matter of J.S.B.
See, e.g., United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315 , 333 (2d Cir.1993) (New York City medical examiner's written autopsy report is admissible as public record under Fed.R.Evid. 803(8)), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1042 , 114 S.Ct. 1565 , 128 L.Ed.2d 211 (1994); State v. Davis, 141 S.W.3d 600 , 630 (Tenn.2004) ("The autopsy reports are admissible hearsay under Rules 803(6) and 803(8) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence."), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1156 , 125 S.Ct. 1306 , 161 L.Ed.2d 123 (2005); Tex. Workers' Comp.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Browning Manufacturing v. Mims (In Re Coastal Plains, Inc.)
See also United States v. McCaskey, 9 F.3d 368, 379 (5th Cir.1993) (purpose of doctrine is "to protect the integrity of the judicial process and to prevent unfair and manipulative use of the court system by litigants”). cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1042 , 114 S.Ct. 1565 , 128 L.Ed.2d 211 (1994); McNemar v. Disney Store, Inc., 91 F.3d 610, 616 (3d Cir.1996) ("The doctrine of judicial estoppel serves a consistently clear and undisputed jurisprudential purpose: to protect the integrity of the courts.”), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1115 , 117 S.Ct. 958 , 136 L.Ed.2d 845 (1997); Matter of Cassidy, 892 F.2…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Panaro v. Kelly
Maldonado, supra; see also United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 337 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1042 , 114 S.Ct. 1565 , 128 L.Ed.2d 211 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Exxon Corp.
See Nichols v. Scott, 69 F.3d 1255, 1272 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, *647 518 U.S. 1022 , 116 S.Ct. 2559 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1076 (1996) (observing that judicial estoppel has never been applied against the government in a criminal case); See also United States v. McCaskey, 9 F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1042 , 114 S.Ct. 1565 , 128 L.Ed.2d 211 (1994) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Munguia MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant
(2×)
Indeed, the rationale behind section 2Dl.l’s unequal treatment of actual or “pure” methamphetamine and a mixture containing methamphetamine is that possession of “unusually pure narcotics may indicate a prominent role in the criminal enterprise and proximity to the source of the drugs.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, Commentary, Application Note 9; see also United States v. Innie, 7 F.3d 840, 847 (9th Cir.) (noting that indexing punishment to purity ensures that “a manufacturer caught with the finished product will not necessarily receive a lesser sentence than one arrested with the same amoun…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jerry Paul Lillard
See, e.g., United States v. Innie, 7 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir.1993) (Congress's market-oriented approach punishes drug trafficking based upon the weight of a mixture containing a detectable amount of drugs), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1567 (1994); United States v. Myers, 993 F.2d 713, 715-16 (9th Cir.1993) (Guidelines allow court to calculate sentence based on ingredients rather than end product and to approximate the quantity of the drug that could be manufactured).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Van Sickle
v.
McGinnis, Warden
v.
McGinnis, Warden
No. 93-8203.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 18, 1994.
Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (1) · E.D. New York (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.