green
Positive treatment
Trending · 83 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 1×
8.5 score
“by using the term 'imminent,' congress indicated that it wanted to include a safety valve for the 'three strikes' rule to prevent impending harms, not those harms that had already occurred.”
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Abdullah v. Migoya
by using the term 'imminent,' congress indicated that it wanted to include a safety valve for the 'three strikes' rule to prevent impending harms, not those harms that had already occurred.
discussed
Cited "see"
Keith Wromas, Jr. v. Z. Scruggs, Officer Wentz, Fendalson
See Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[A] prisoner’s allegation that he faced imminent danger sometime in the past is an insufficient basis to allow him to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the imminent danger exception to the statute.”); see generally Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 315 (3d Cir. 2001) (finding the word “imminent” in the statute to indicate congressional intent to prevent only “impending harms, not those harms that had already occurred”), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 953 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Wills v. Barnhart
See United States v. Wills (Wills I), 234 F.3d 174, 176 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 953 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Tennessee v. Robert Hood
(2×)
See State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 546 (Tenn. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 953 , 121 S. Ct. 2600 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Diomedes Alcantara, Also Known as Lenox Estefan, Also Known as Josie Alcantara, Also Known as Diomedes Alcantara, Also Known as El Princepe, Also Known as Fnu Lnu Edwin Pujols, Also Known as El Gordito Jose Gilberto Deleon Melbin Garcia Ramon Emilio Rodriguez Edison Antonio Genao-Almanzar Marco Perez Gonzalo Gasso, Carlos Goiry, Also Known as the Engineer, United States of America v. Luz Marina Munoz, Also Known as Tusa
See United States v. Johnson, 221 F.3d 83, 96 (2d Cir.2000) ("`Guided by considerations of justice, and in the exercise of supervisory powers, federal courts may, within limits, formulate procedural rules not specifically required by the Constitution or the Congress.'" (quoting United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 505 , 103 S.Ct. 1974 , 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983))), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 2599 (2001); Daye v. Attorney General, 712 F.2d 1566, 1571 (2d Cir.1983) ("[F]ederal courts have authority under their supervisory powers to oversee the administration of criminal justice within …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Alcantara
See United States v. Johnson, 221 F.3d 83, 96 (2d Cir.2000) (“ ‘Guided by considerations of justice,- and in the exercise of supervisory powers, federal courts may, within limits, formulate procedural rules not specifically required by the Constitution or the Congress.’ ” (quoting United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 505 , 103 S.Ct. 1974 , 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983))), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 2599 (2001); Daye v. Attorney General, 712 F.2d 1566, 1571 (2d Cir.1983) (“[FJederal courts have authority under their supervisory powers to oversee the administration of criminal ju…
cited
Cited "see"
State of Tennessee v. David Ivy
See State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 570 (Tenn. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 953 , 121 S. Ct. 2600 (2001) (citations omitted); see also Godsey, 60 S.W.3d at 783 .
cited
Cited "see"
State of Tennessee v. Charles Rice
See State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 570 (Tenn. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 953 (2001) (citations omitted); see also Godsey, 60 S.W.3d at 783 .
cited
Cited "see"
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Thomas and Anthony Bond
See State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 570 (Tenn. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 953 , 121 S. Ct. 2600 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Osornia-Varela
See United States v. Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 237-39 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 953 (2001); see also United States v. Berrios- Centeno, 250 F.3d 294, 297-300 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 288 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Baeza-Sanchez
See United States v. Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 237-39 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 953 (2001); see also United States v. Berrios- Centeno, 250 F.3d 294, 297-300 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 288 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
SIMPSON v. DAVENPORT
See also Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 314 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 953 (2001) (suggesting that the PLRA exhaustion requirement applies “only if the plaintiff is a prisoner at the time of filing”) (citing Greig, 169 F.3d at 167 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lafferty v. Jones
In Brown, the court decided that the lower standard in Gentile may be extended to nonattorney litigation participants, as there was ‘‘no reason . . . to distinguish between [attorneys and parties] for the purpose of evaluating a gag order directed at them both.’’ Id., 428; see also State v. Car- ruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516 , 562–63 (Tenn. 2000) (declining to apply clear and present danger test to trial partici- pants), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 953 , 121 S. Ct. 2600 , 150 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lafferty v. Jones
In Brown, the court decided that the lower standard in Gentile may be extended to nonattorney litigation participants, as there was ‘‘no reason . . . to distinguish between [attorneys and par- ties] for the purpose of evaluating a gag order directed at them both.’’ Id., 428; see also State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516 , 562–63 (Tenn. 2000) (declining to apply clear and present danger test to trial participants), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 953 , 121 S. Ct. 2600 , 150 L.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Michael Siluk, Jr. v. Catherine Merwin
(3×)
Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 , 131 S.Ct. 1289 , 1299, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011); see also Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 , 318 & n. 3 (3d Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 2600 , 150 L.Ed.2d 757 (2001). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Maye
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 00-8646.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 29, 2001.
Published
Citer courts: S.D. Florida (1)
C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.