green
Positive treatment
4.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Taylor
See United States v. Ivy, 88 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir.1996), cert. denied, Taylor v. United States, 519 U.S. 901 , 117 S.Ct. 253 , 136 L.Ed.2d 180 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Al-Bayyinah
See State v. Walker, 343 N.C. 216, 222-24 , 469 S.E.2d 919, 922-23 (directing that the trial court should instruct that defendant did not request the (f)(1) mitigator if given over defendant’s objection), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 901 , 136 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Castorena-Jaime
United States v. Edmonson, 962 F.2d 1535, 1541 (10th Cir.1992). “ ‘The purpose of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the charge against him with sufficient precision to allow him to prepare his defense, to minimize surprise at trial, and to enable him to plead double jeopardy in the event of a later prosecution for the same offense.’” Dunn, 841 F.2d at 1029 (quoting United States v. Cole, 755 F.2d 748, 760 (11th Cir.1985)); see United States v. Ivy, 83 F.3d 1266, 1281 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 901 , 117 S.Ct. 253 , 136 L.Ed.2d 180 (1996); United States v. Kun…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Shepard
United States v. Edmonson, 962 F.2d 1535, 1541 (10th Cir.1992). “ ‘The purpose of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the charge against him with sufficient precision to allow him to prepare his defense, to minimize surprise at trial, and to enable him to plead double jeopardy in the event of a later prosecution for the same offense.’” Dunn, 841 F.2d at 1029 (quoting United States v. Cole, 755 F.2d 748, 760 (11th Cir.1985)); see United States v. Ivy, 83 F.3d 1266, 1281 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 901 , 117 S.Ct. 253 , 136 L.Ed.2d 180 (1996); United States v. Kun…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Walters
See United States v. Ivy, 83 F.3d 1266, 1281 (10th Cir.) (“The purpose of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the charge against him with sufficient precision to allow him to prepare his defense.”) (quoting United States v. Levine, 983 F.2d 165, 166-67 (10th Cir.1992)) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 901 , 117 S.Ct. 253 (1996); United States v. Kunzman, 54 F.3d 1522, 1526 (10th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Lotter
See, U.S. v. Ivy, 83 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 901 , 117 S. Ct. 253 , 136 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Autem
See, e.g., United States v. Ivy, 83 F.3d 1266, 1284 (10th Cir.) (‘We will not reverse a conviction merely because the verdict was grounded on the uncorroborated testimony of a coconspirator.”), cert denied, 519 U.S. 901 , 117 S.Ct. 253 , 136 L.Ed.2d 180 (1996).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Cobb
Ed. 2d 498 (2000); see also State v. Walker, 343 N.C. 216, 221-22 , 469 S.E.2d 919, 922 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 901 , 136 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Heckard
See, e.g., United States v. Ivy, 83 F.3d 1266, 1287 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 901 , 117 S.Ct. 253 , 136 L.Ed.2d 180 (1996) (sustaining conviction for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine based solely on informant testimony that the defendant was a dealer).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Parker
Ed. 2d 229 (1996); see also State v. Walker, 343 N.C. 216, 223 , 469 S.E.2d 919, 922 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 901 , 136 L.
Vey
v.
Pennsylvania
v.
Pennsylvania
No. 96-5485.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1996.
Published
Super. Ct. Pa. Certio-rari denied.