green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
8.0 score
“the requirement that a proper foundation be laid for the admission of evidence serves that purpose among others, and is well established.”
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Carlos Garcia
the requirement that a proper foundation be laid for the admission of evidence serves that purpose among others, and is well established.
discussed
Cited "see"
Parker v. Ercole
See Lurie v. Wittner, 228 F.3d 113, 123 (2d Cir.2000) (court may consider exhaustion sua sponte, absent express waiver by respondent), cert. denied 532 U.S. 943 , 121 S.Ct. 1404 , 149 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001). 8 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Yevakpor
See United States v. Feliciano, 223 F.3d 102, 121 (2d Cir.2000) (collecting cases), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 943 , 121 S.Ct. 1405 , 149 L.Ed.2d 348 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Velazquez v. Poole
See United States v. Feliciano, 223 F.3d 102, 123-24 (2d Cir.2000) (holding that the district court’s “prompt responses and ... final instructions” successfully mitigated any potential prejudice caused by the prosecutor’s remarks, where the court’s pre-summation and final charge indicated to the jury that “counsel’s arguments are not evidence” and that it is the jurors’ “ ‘recollection and interpretation of the evidence that controls’ ”), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 943, 121 S.Ct. 1405 , 149 L.Ed.2d 348 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Dwan v. City Of Boston
See United States v. Stein, 233 F.3d 6, 14-17 (1st Cir.2000), cert. denied 532 U.S. 943 , 121 S.Ct. 1406 , 149 L.Ed.2d 348 (2001). 19 Like all "abstract" rights, Garrity has its limitations.
discussed
Cited "see"
Inland Bulk Transfer Co. v. Cummins Engine Co.
See United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187, 1192 (10th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 943 , 121 S.Ct. 1406 , 149 L.Ed.2d 348 (2001); Ross v. Kemp, 785 F.2d 1467 , 1474 n. 12 (11th Cir.1986); Turk v. United States, 429 F.2d 1327, 1329 (8th Cir.1970).
cited
Cited "see"
Dwan v. City of Boston
See United, States v. Stein, 233 F.3d 6, 14-17 (1st Cir.2000), cert. denied 532 U.S. 943 , 121 S.Ct. 1406 , 149 L.Ed.2d 348 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cutter
See United States v. Stein, 233 F.3d 6, 17 (1st Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 943 , 121 S.Ct. 1406 , 149 L.Ed.2d 348 (2001) (upholding an intended loss calculation based on the defendants’ *6 net gain over the mortgage and expenses).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Beasley
See United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187, 1193 (10th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 943 , 121 S.Ct. 1406 , 149 L.Ed.2d 348 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Zollinger v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc.
See United States v. Feliciano, 223 F.3d 102, 120 (2d Cir.2000), cert. denied sub. nom. 532 U.S. 943 , 121 S.Ct. 1406 , 149 L.Ed.2d 348 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Seck
See United States v. Feliciano, 223 F.3d 102, 123 (2d Cir.2000), cert, denied, 532 U.S. 943 , 121 S.Ct. 1405 , 149 L.Ed.2d 348 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Buckley
See United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187, 1197 (10th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 943 , 121 S.Ct. 1406 , 149 L.Ed.2d 348 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Burrell
See United States v. Feliciano, 223 F.3d 102, 115 (2d Cir.2000) (articulating standard), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 943 (2001).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Pagan v. United States
See, e.g., United States v. Feliciano, 223 F.3d 102, 107-110 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. denied 532 U.S. 943 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ponder v. Conway
July 11, 2002)); see also, e.g., United States v. Feliciano, 223 F.3d 102, 111 (2d Cir.2000) (finding no case “in which an appellate court has found a structural defect where a defendant was present throughout but unable to hear a circumscribed portion of voir dire, and whose counsel was allowed to consult with him about the limited questioning outside his hearing”), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 943 , 121 S.Ct. 1406 , 149 L.Ed.2d 348 (2001); Perez v. Greiner, 00 Civ. 5504, 2005 WL 613183 at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Britton v. Britton
Co. v. Stefanou, 831 F.2d 484, 487 (4th Cir.1987) (invoking Fifth Amendment privilege in response to a civil pleading requires a sufficiently particular affirmative assertion); see also United States v. Stein, 233 F.3d 6, 14 (1st Cir.2000) *279 cert. denied, 532 U.S. 943 , 121 S.Ct. 1406 , 149 L.Ed.2d 348 (2001) (noting that the Fifth Amendment privilege applies in any proceeding where answers given might tend to incriminate the witness in a future criminal proceeding). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Litvin
Instead, “she was standing safely on the bank of the stream.” Id. (quotations omitted); see also United States v. Stein, 233 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 943 (2001) (attorney’s testimony before Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers was not coerced merely because she feared disbarment where, according to board’s own rules, disbarment would not result automatically for failure to testify).
Lurie
v.
Wittner
v.
Wittner
No. 00-1248.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 26, 2001.
532 U.S. 943
Published
Citer courts: Second Circuit (1)
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.