green
Positive treatment
7.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Loeffel Steel Products, Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc.
See Clark v. Takata, 192 F.3d 750, 758 (7th Cir.1999) (hands on testing is a reasonable methodology). 16 *1117 Chapman v. Maytag, 297 F.3d 682 (7th Cir.2002) and O’Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 13 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1222 , 114 S.Ct. 2711 , 129 L.Ed.2d 838 (1994) — on which DBI relies — are not a basis to exclude Mr. Toc-zyl’s testimony.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Terry Lynn KING, Movant
See King v. Dutton, 17 F.3d 151 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1222 , 114 S.Ct. 2712 , 129 L.Ed.2d 838 (1994).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. $141,770.00 in United States Currency, Rafael Moreno-Pena, Claimant--Appellant
(4×)
See United States v. Ornelas-Rodriguez, 12 F.3d 1339, 1348 (5th Cir.1994) (finding no error in district court’s refusal to grant mistrial where Fifth Amendment invocation was elicited during government’s cross-examination of a nongovernment witness), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1222 , 114 S.Ct. 2713 , 129 L.Ed.2d 839 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rafael Moreno-Pena v. United States
See United States v. Ornelas-Rodriguez, 12 F.3d 1339, 1348 (5th Cir.) (finding no error in district court's refusal to grant mistrial where Fifth Amendment invocation was elicited during government's cross-examination of a nongovernment witness), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1222 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Pana v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
See LaChance v. Reno, 13 F.3d 586 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1222 , 114 S.Ct. 2711 , 129 L.Ed.2d 837 (1994); Miller v. Hadden, 811 F.2d 743 (2d Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
McCafferty v. Centerior Service Co.
See In re TMI, 67 F.3d 1103, 1106-07 (3rd Cir.1995) (“federal law determines the standard of care and preempts state tort law”) (citing O’Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 13 F.3d 1090, 1105 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1222 , 114 S.Ct. 2711 , 129 L.Ed.2d 838 (1994)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1034 , 134 L.Ed.2d 111 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. James C. Dunkel
See O'Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 13 F.3d 1090, 1099 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1222 (1994) 3 Rather, it appears that Dunkel is challenging the district court's personal jurisdiction over him.
discussed
Cited "see"
United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Midland Fumigant, Inc.
See Schmaltz v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 878 F.Supp. 1119, 1124 (N.D.Ill.1995) (citing O’Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 13 F.3d 1090 , 1107 n. 20 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1222 , 114 S.Ct. 2711 , 129 L.Ed.2d 838 (1994)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Anthony J. Nieman v. Nlo, Inc. And Nl Industries, Inc.
(2×)
See O’Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 13 F.3d 1090, 1100 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1222 , 114 S.Ct. 2711 , 129 L.Ed.2d 838 (1994); Brannon v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (In re TMI Litig.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Brad Eugene Branch, Kevin Whitecliff, Jaime Castillo, Renos Lenny Avraam, Paul Fatta and Graeme Leonard Craddock
(2×)
See United States v. Chapman, 7 F.3d 66, 69 (5th Cir.1993) (holding defendant “waived any error based on this issue as he failed to raise it either in his written objections to the pre-sentence report or orally at the sentencing hearing”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2713 , 129 L.Ed.2d 839 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BRAD EUGENE BRANCH, KEVIN WHITECLIFF, JAIME CASTILLO, RENOS LENNY AVRAAM, PAUL FATTA AND GRAEME LEONARD CRADDOCK
See United States v. Chapman, 7 F.3d 66, 69 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding defendant "waived any error based on this issue as he failed to raise it either in his written objections to the pre-sentence report or orally at the sentencing hearing"), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 2713 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Terry Lynn King v. State of Tennessee
Tenn. Aug. 12, 2011), aff’d, 847 F.3d 788 (6th Cir. 2017); see also King v. Dutton, 17 F.3d 151 (6th Cir. 1994) (challenging the Grainger County first degree murder conviction that served as a factual basis of the application of the prior violent felony aggravating circumstance), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1222 , 114 S. Ct. 2712 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Yoswick v. State
It appears “well settled that the Constitution does not require that a defendant be provided with information concerning parole eligibility.” Meyers v. Gillis, 93 F.3d 1147, 1153 (3rd Cir.1996) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56 , 106 S.Ct. 366, 369 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203, 208 (1985)); see also King v. Dutton, 17 F.3d 151, 154 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1222 , 114 S.Ct. 2712 , 129 L.Ed.2d 838 (1994); United States v. Garcia, 636 F.2d 122, 123 (5th Cir. Unit A Feb.1981) (per curiam); Hunter v. Fogg, 616 F.2d 55, 61 (2nd Cir.1980); Strader, 611 F.2d at 63 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Philip Meyers v. Frank D. Gillis, Superintendent the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania the District Attorney of Bucks County
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56 , 106 S.Ct. 366, 369 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); see also King v. Dutton, 17 F.3d 151, 154 (6th Cir.) ("a defendant need not be informed of the details of his parole eligibility, including the possibility of being ineligible for parole") (citations omitted), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1222 , 114 S.Ct. 2712 , 129 L.Ed.2d 838 (1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Antonio Urrego
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 93-1871.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 20, 1994.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.