Paul v. William Morrow & Co., 525 U.S. 1094 (1999). · Go Syfert
Paul v. William Morrow & Co., 525 U.S. 1094 (1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP (or, 2004-01-23) · Strongest negative: State v. Ross (conn, 2005-05-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" State v. Ross
Conn. · 2005 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Wilkins v. Bowersox, 145 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1094 , 119 S. Ct. 852 , 142 L.
discussed Cited "see" Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP
Or. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See *335 Movitz v. First Nat’l Bank, 148 F3d 760 (7th Cir 1998), cert den, 525 US 1094 (1999) (where real estate investor purchased building in reliance on bank’s negligent evaluation of building, investor could not recover from bank for damages attributable to collapse of real estate market because bank’s conduct did not cause market collapse).
discussed Cited "see" Shafer v. Bowersox
E.D. Mo. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
Whether a waiver of counsel is valid depends "in each case upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused." Edwards, 451 U.S. at 482 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 ; see Wilkins v. Bowersox, 145 F.3d 1006, 1012 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1094 , 119 S.Ct. 852 , 142 L.Ed.2d 705 (1999) (stating that "[i]n the waiver of counsel context, ... a defendant's background and personal characteristics are highly relevant in determining the validity of such a waiver.").
cited Cited "see, e.g." Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP
Or. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Movitz v. First Nat’l Bank, 148 F3d 760 (7th Cir 1998), cert den 525 US 1094 (1999); Bastian v. Petren Resources Corp., 892 F2d 680 (7th Cir), cert den 496 US 906 (1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Battenfield v. Gibson (2×)
10th Cir. · 2001 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Singleton v. Lockhart, 962 F.2d 1315, 1321 (8th Cir. 1992) (treating as a factual finding the question of whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to present mitigating evidence), and State v. Ashworth, 706 N.E. 2d 1231, 1237 (Ohio 1999) (indicating a trial court in a capital case must "make findings of fact as to the defendant's understanding and waiver of" his right to present mitigating evidence), with Wilkins v. Bowersox, 145 F.3d 1006, 1015-16 (8th Cir. 1998) (suggesting that whether a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to present miti…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Paul
v.
William Morrow & Co., Inc.
No. 98-659.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 11, 1999.
525 U.S. 1094
Consideration, Took.
Published

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.