green
Positive treatment
8.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Fred Earl Ingerson, III v. State
See Wiley, 74 S.W.3d at 407 (“It is not sufficient for a defendant merely to offer up unsupported speculation that another person may have done the crime.”) (quoting United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1191 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1007 (1999)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Brown
See State v. Kinney, 83 Ohio St. 3d 85, 96 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1007 (1999) (evidence in affidavit expressly indicating innocent persons and activity on premises precludes finding of probable cause to search all persons on premises).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Parks
See United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1193 (10th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1007 , 119 S.Ct. 1148 , 143 L.Ed.2d 215 (1999); Morissette, 342 U.S. at 263 , 72 S.Ct. 240 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Ross
See United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1208 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1007 , 119 S. Ct. 1148 , 143 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Carrigan, Unpublished Decision (2-25-2004)
See State v. Kinney (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 85 , 87 , certiorari denied (1999), 526 U.S. 1007 , 119 S.Ct. 1148 , 143 L.Ed.2d 214 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Carrigan, Unpublished Decision (2-25-2004)
See State v. Kinney (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 85 , 87 , certiorari denied (1999), 526 U.S. 1007 , 119 S.Ct. 1148 , 143 L.Ed.2d 214 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Carrigan, Unpublished Decision (2-25-2004)
See State v. Kinney (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 85 , 87 , certiorari denied (1999), 526 U.S. 1007 , 119 S.Ct. 1148 , 143 L.Ed.2d 214 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Roberts, Unpublished Decision (1-29-2003)
See State v. Kinney (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 85 , 87 , certiorari denied (1999), 526 U.S. 1007 , 119 S.Ct. 1148 , 143 L.Ed.2d 214 . "[T]he `physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.'" Middletown v. Flinchum (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 43 , 44 , quoting United States v. United States Dist.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Pitts, Unpublished Decision (11-20-2002)
See State v. Kinney (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 85 , 87 , certiorari denied (1999), 526 U.S. 1007 , 119 S.Ct. 1148 , 143 L.Ed.2d 214 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Cummings, Unpublished Decision (01-16-2002)
See State v. Kinney (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 85 , 87 , certiorari denied (1999), 526 U.S. 1007 , 119 S.Ct. 1148 , 143 L.Ed.2d 214 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Patrick
Fed.R.Evid. 403; see United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1190-92 (10th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1007 , 119 S.Ct. 1148 , 143 L.Ed.2d 215 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute
See U.S. v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1193 (10th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1007 , 119 S.Ct. 1148 , 143 L.Ed.2d 215 (Mar. 8, 1999) (applied the provisions of § 2332a(a)(2) as they had existed in 1995, when the terrorist act took place).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bin Laden
See U.S. v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166 , 1194- 95 (10th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1007, 119 S.Ct. 1148 , 143 L.Ed.2d 215 (1999); U.S. v. Kaczynski, 1997 WL 716487 , *2-4 (E.D.Cal.1997); U.S. v. Johnson, 1997 WL 534163 , *5 (N.D.Ill.1997); U.S. v. Nguyen, 928 F.Supp. 1525, 1545-46 (D.Kan.1996); U.S. v. Frank, 8 F.Supp.2d 253, 281-282 (S.D.N.Y.1998).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Miranda
See United States v. McVeigh , 153 F.3d 1166, 1199 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 526 U.S. 1007 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jorge Alberto Alatorre
See United States v. Nichols, 169 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (10th Cir.1999) (rejecting claim that defendant was entitled to a preliminary hearing on admissibility of expert testimony and concluding that court did not abuse its discretion in refusing such a hearing), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1007 , 119 S.Ct. 1148 , 143 L.Ed.2d 215 (1999); Kirstein v. Parks Corp., 159 F.3d 1065, 1067 (7th Cir.1998) (rejecting plaintiffs’ claim that they were entitled to a hearing on the admissibility of expert opinion, holding that trial court “had a sufficient basis for her decision without holding a hearing” and …
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cherry
(2×)
See United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166 (10 th Cir.1998), cert denied, 526 U.S. 1007 , 119 S.Ct. 1148 , 143 L.Ed.2d 215 (1999); United States v. Resko, 3 F.3d 684 (3 rd Cir.1993).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Farmer
See United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1199 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1007 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Clark
See United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1219 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that the effects of the victims’ deaths upon the families is part of the circumstances of the crime and is properly presented to the jury at the penalty phase), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1007 , 119 S.Ct. 1148 , 143 L.Ed.2d 215 (1999); State v. Bernard, 608 So.2d 966, 971 (La.1992) (holding that the impact upon the victims is relevant to circumstances of the crime); People v. Edwards, 54 Cal.3d 787 , 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696 , 819 P.2d 436, 467 (1991) (in bank) (allowing “evidence and argument on the specific harm caused by th…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Billie Jerome Allen, United States of America v. Norris G. Holder
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1176 (10th Cir.1998) (upholding Timothy McVeigh’s eleven sentences of death as a result of his conduct and convictions for the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1007 , 119 S.Ct. 1148 , 143 L.Ed.2d 215 (1999). 3.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Billie Jerome Allen
See, e.g., United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1176 (10th Cir. 1998) (upholding Timothy McVeigh's eleven sentences of death as a result of his conduct and convictions for the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1007 (1999). 3.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Allen
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166 , 1221 n. 47 (10th Cir.1998) (noting that “the district court prohibited the introduction of wedding photographs and home videos”), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1007 , 119 S.Ct. 1148 , 143 L.Ed.2d 215 (1999). {55} In this case, however, we conclude that the trial court was careful to limit the State’s presentation of victim impact testimony so that it did not exceed the boundaries established in Payne and its progeny.
Soltesz
v.
Diversitec Image Technology, Inc.
v.
Diversitec Image Technology, Inc.
No. 98-7437.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 8, 1999.
Published
Ct. App. Ohio, Lucas County. Certiorari denied.