green
Positive treatment
11.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Threadgill
United States v. Ishmael, 48 F.3d 850, 853 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 7 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Velez, J.
See Commonwealth v. Dalberto, 648 A.2d 16, 21 (Pa.Super. 1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 , 116 S.Ct. 75 , 133 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995) (stating: “[W]e will allow an appeal only as to those discretionary aspects of sentencing which have not been agreed upon during the negotiation process”). -9- J-A07045-22 In order to dispel any lingering doubt as to our intention of engaging in an effort of legal purification, we state clearly that [sentencing courts] are under no compulsion to employ checklists or any extended or systematic definitions of their punishment procedure.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Harris, K., Jr.
See Commonwealth v. Dalberto, 648 A.2d 16, 21 (Pa.Super. 1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 , 116 S.Ct. 75 , 133 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995) (stating “in a ‘negotiated’ plea agreement, where a sentence of specific duration has been made part of a plea bargain, it would clearly make a sham of the negotiated -5- J-S13018-22 plea process for courts to allow defendants to later challenge their sentence; this would, in effect, give defendants a second bite at the sentencing process”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Pope, T.
See Commonwealth v. Dalberto, 648 A.2d 16, 21 (Pa.Super. 1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 , 116 S.Ct. 75 , 133 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995) (stating “in a ‘negotiated’ plea agreement, where a sentence of specific duration has been made part of a plea bargain, it would clearly make a sham of the negotiated plea process for courts to allow defendants to later challenge their sentence; this would, in effect, give defendants a second bite at the sentencing process”).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Spoonhour, J.
See Commonwealth v. Dalberto, 648 A.2d 16 (Pa.Super. 1994), appeal denied, 540 Pa. 594 , 655 A.2d 983 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 , 116 S.Ct. 75 , 133 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Ash, W.
See Commonwealth v. Dalberto, 648 A.2d 16, 19-21 (Pa. Super. 1994), appeal denied, 655 A.2d 983 (Pa. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 (1995) (discussing difference between negotiated, open, and hybrid guilty pleas). -2- J-S41002-17 (See Sentencing Court Opinion, 8/09/16, at 2-3; Order, 12/07/15).2 On April 1, 2016, the Commonwealth filed a motion for a briefing schedule and evidentiary hearing.
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Parsons
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Dalberto, 436 Pa.Super. 391 , 648 A.2d 16 , 20 n. 4 (1994), appeal denied, 540 Pa. 594 , 655 A.2d 983 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 , 116 S.Ct. 75 , 133 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995). .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Danny Lee Kyllo
(2×)
See United States v. Ishmael, 48 F.3d 850, 854 (5th Cir.) (finding warrantless thermal imagery permissible but rejecting the ‘Vaste heat” analogy), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 , 818, 116 S.Ct. 74 , 75, 133 L.Ed.2d 34, 34 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Avetisov, O.
See also Commonwealth v. Dalberto, 648 A.2d 16, 21 (Pa.Super. 1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 , 116 S.Ct. 75 , 133 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995) (stating, “[I]n a ‘negotiated’ plea agreement, where a sentence of specific duration has been made part of a plea bargain, it would clearly make a sham of the negotiated plea process for courts to allow defendants to later challenge their sentence; this would, in effect, give defendants a second bite at the sentencing process”). - 13 - J-S36035-23 Nevertheless, “a criminal defendant cannot agree to an illegal sentence, so the fact that the illegality …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chauvin v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc.
Holding v. Dayco Products, Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Engstrom v. First Nat’l Bank of Eagle Lake, 47 F.3d 1459 , 1465 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 (1995) (district court did not abuse discretion by remanding remaining state claims). 65 Enochs v. Lampasas Cnty., 641 F.3d 155 , 158–59 (5th Cir. 2011). 66 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c). exercising supplemental jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Plaintiffs state law claims without prejudice.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chauvin v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc.
Holding v. Dayco Products, Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Engstrom v. First Nat’l Bank of Eagle Lake, 47 F.3d 1459 , 1465 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 (1995) (district court did not abuse discretion by remanding remaining state claims). 33 Enochs v. Lampasas Cnty., 641 F.3d 155 , 158–59 (5th Cir. 2011). 34 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c). judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction as this claim has not been substantially litigated in this Court and Louisiana state courts have a significant interest in resolving issues…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Picou v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc.
Holding v. Dayco Products, Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Engstrom v. First Nat’l Bank of Eagle Lake, 47 F.3d 1459, 1465 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 (1995) (district court did not abuse discretion by remanding remaining state claims). relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state law claims, a court should “look to the statutory factors set forth by 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c), and to the common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”32 The statutory factors concern whether “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hughes v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc.
Holding v. Dayco Products, Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Engstrom v. First Nat’l Bank of Eagle Lake, 47 F.3d 1459 , 1465 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 (1995) (district court did not abuse discretion by remanding remaining state claims). 27 Enochs v. Lampasas Cnty., 641 F.3d 155 , 158–59 (5th Cir. 2011). dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.”2° The statutory factors weigh in favor of dismissing Plaintiffs state law claims.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Betts v. Brennan
Holding v. Dayco Products, Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Engstrom v. First Nat’l Bank of Eagle Lake, 47 F.3d 1459, 1465 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 (1995) (district court did not abuse discretion by remanding remaining state claims).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Feliciano, A.
See also Commonwealth v. Dalberto, 648 A.2d 16, 21 (Pa.Super. 1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 , 116 S.Ct. 75 , 133 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995) (stating “in a ‘negotiated’ plea agreement, where a sentence of specific duration has been made part of a plea bargain, it would clearly make a sham of the negotiated plea process for courts to allow defendants to later challenge their sentence; this would, in effect, give defendants a second bite at the sentencing process”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Henderson, M.
(See Anders Brief, at 19; Trial Ct. -9- J-S69034-16 Op., at 2); see also Commonwealth v. Dalberto, 648 A.2d 16 (Pa. Super. 1994), appeal denied, 655 A.2d 983 (Pa. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 (1995): [I]n a negotiated plea agreement, where a sentence of specific duration has been made part of a plea bargain, it would clearly make a sham of the negotiated plea process for courts to allow defendants to later challenge their sentence; this would, in effect, give defendants a second bite at the sentencing process.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Chang v. Cargill, Inc.
See also Geraci v. Eckankar, 526 N.W.2d 391, 397 (Minn.Ct.App.1995), rev. denied, March 14, 1995, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 , 116 S.Ct. 75 , 133 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
McClure v. American Family Mutual Insurance
See also Geraci v. Eckankar, 526 N.W.2d 391, 397 (Minn. Ct.App.1995), rev. denied, March 14, 1995, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 , 116 S.Ct. 75 , 133 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Lowrey v. Texas A & M University System
See, e.g., Engstrom v. First Nat'l Bank, 47 F.3d 1459 , 1464 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 , 116 S.Ct. 75 , 133 L.Ed.2d 35 (1995); Conti, 912 F.2d at 818 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ishmael
v.
United States and Ishmael v. United States
v.
United States and Ishmael v. United States
No. 94-2020; No. 94-9641.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 2, 1995.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.