Fuentes v. United States, 522 U.S. 1119 (1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Fuentes v. United States, 522 U.S. 1119 (1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases · “We recognize that in certain situations, it may be redundant and inefficient to require each defendant in a joint trial to stand up individually and make every objection to preserve each error for appeal.”
48 citation events (42 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Baker (ca6, 2006-08-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Baker
6th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
we recognize that in certain situations, it may be redundant and inefficient to require each defendant in a joint trial to stand up individually and make every objection to preserve each error for appeal.
discussed Cited "see" Darrin Lincoln, Sherri Lincoln, and Raymond Hartman v. Carlos Rico and Maria Guadalupe Rico (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Van Cleave, 674 N.E.2d 1293, 1296 (Ind. 1996) (“We are not bound by the trial court’s characterization of its results as ‘findings of fact’ or ‘conclusions of law.’ Rather, we look . . . to the substance of the judgment and will review a legal conclusion as such even if the judgment wrongly classifies it as a finding of fact.”), reh’g granted in part 681 N.E.2d 181 (Ind. 1997), cert. denied 522 U.S. 1119 (1998).
cited Cited "see" Sowerby v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1119 , 118 S.Ct. 1059 , 140 L.Ed.2d 120 (1998).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Mahdi
D.C. Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Whren, 111 F.3d 956, 959-60 (D.C.Cir.1997) (“[U]nless the court of appeals expressly directs otherwise, the district court may consider only such new arguments or new facts as are made newly relevant by the court of appeals’ decision— whether by the reasoning or by the result.”), cer t. denied, 522 U.S. 1119 , 118 S.Ct. 1059 , 140 L.Ed.2d 120 (1998).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Ernesto Quintieri, Carlo Donato
2d Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Whren, 111 F.3d 956, 960 (D.C.Cir.1997) ("[U]pon a resentencing occasioned by a remand, unless the court of appeals expressly directs' otherwise, the district court may consider only such new arguments or new facts as are made newly relevant by the court of appeals' decision—whether by the reasoning or by the result.”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1119 , 118 S.Ct 1059 , 140 L.Ed.2d 120 (1998); United States v. Ticchiarelli, 171 F.3d 24, 32 (1st Cir.) (same), cert. denied sub nom.
discussed Cited "see" UNITED STATES v. MARCOS MARTÍNEZ-MEDINA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MANUEL PÉREZ-COLÓN, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ANGELA AYALA-MARTÍNEZ
1st Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Westbrook, 119 F.3d 1176, 1191 (5th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1119 , 118 S.Ct. 1059 , 1060, 140 L.Ed.2d 121 (1998); United States v. Cisneros, 112 F.3d 1272, 1283 (5th Cir.1997).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Perez-Colon
1st Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Westbrook, 119 F.3d 1176, 1191 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1119 (1998); United States v. Cisneros, 112 F.3d 1272, 1283 (5th Cir. 1997).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Martínez-Medina
1st Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Westbrook, 119 F.3d 1176, 1191 (5th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1119 , 118 S.Ct. 1059 , 1060, 140 L.Ed.2d 121 (1998); United States v. Cisneros, 112 F.3d 1272, 1283 (5th Cir.1997).
cited Cited "see" Harris v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. (citing State v. Van Cleave, 674 NE.2d 1293, 1299 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1119 , 118 S.Ct. 1060 , 140 L.Ed.2d 121 (1998)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Butler v. Quarterman
S.D. Tex. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
The state court’s factual de *809 terminations are presumed correct unless rebutted by “clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1); see also Jackson v. Anderson, 112 F.3d 823, 824-25 (5th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1119 , 118 S.Ct. 1059 , 140 L.Ed.2d 120 (1998).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Steven L. Baker
6th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
In *518 an analogous case, we refused to consider defendants’ claims waived due to their failure to join in a codefendant’s pre-trial motion to suppress evidence; we explained that “[ajdditional fourth amendment challenges by the other appellants raising the identical legal issue would neither have altered the [trial] court’s ruling nor served the purposes of the pre-trial motion rule.” 8 United States v. Cassity, 631 F.2d 461, 466 (6th Cir.1980); see also United States v. Westbrook, 119 F.3d 1176, 1185 (5th Cir.1997) (“We have sometimes allowed a defendant to preserve a district c…
Fuentes
v.
United States
No. 97-1215.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 23, 1998.
522 U.S. 1119
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 71%
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (1)

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.