green
Positive treatment
11.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
In re Gillenwater
See Tavenner v. Smoot (In re Smoot), 257 F.3d 401 (4th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 926 , 151 L.Ed.2d 890 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Rizzo
(2×)
See Whitehead v. Cowan, 263 F.3d 708, 732 (7th Cir.2001) (noting that Illinois courts previously have reached that conclusion, and also have declined to require that defendant be informed that jury's decision to impose death penalty must be unanimous), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 927 , 151 L.Ed.2d 890 (2002); see also People v. Shatner, 174 Ill.2d 133, 154 , 220 Ill.Dec. 346 , 673 N.E.2d 258 (1996) (Illinois courts repeatedly have held that defendant need not be expressly advised that vote of single juror may preclude imposition of death penalty).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sullivan v. Welsh (In Re Lumbar)
See Tavenner v. Smoot, 257 F.3d 401, 406 (4th Cir.2001) (noting that a majority of courts have rejected the “no harm, no foul” approach for avoiding fraudulent transfers), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 926 , 151 L.Ed.2d, 890 (2002); Fox v. Smoker (In re Noblit), 72 F.3d 757, 758 (9th Cir.1995) (stating that the majority of recent cases has rejected the "diminution of the estate” doctrine) (citing In re Richards, 92 B.R. 369, 372 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1988); In re Rundlett, 149 B.R. 353, 358 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1993); Matter of Wickstrom, 113 B.R. 339, 351 (Bankr.W.D.Mich.1990); In re Cates…
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Godfrey
See Tavenner v. Smoot, 257 F.3d 401 (4th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 926 , 151 L.Ed.2d 890 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Conley
See Tavenner v. Smoot (In re Smoot), 257 F.3d 401 (4th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 926 , 151 L.Ed.2d 890 .
cited
Cited "see"
Robledo-Gonzales v. Ashcroft
See Whitehead v. Cowan, 263 F.3d 708 , 730 n. 5 (7th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 927 , 151 L.Ed.2d 890 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Robledo-Gonzales v. Ashcroft, John D.
See Whitehead v. Cowan, 263 F.3d 708 , 730 n. 5 (7th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 927 , 151 L.Ed.2d 890 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rodriguez-Luis
See United States v. Jacquinot, 258 F.3d 423, 430 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1116 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Pedro Oropesa
See United States v. Hartje, 251 F.3d 771, 775 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding that a drug transaction one month prior to the warrant application was not stale information in light of the ongoing nature of the crime), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1116 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Pedro Enrique Traveasa Oropesa
See United States v. Hartje, 251 F.3d 771, 775 (8th Cir.2001) (holding that a drug transaction one month prior to the warrant application was not stale information in light of the ongoing nature of the crime), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 925 , 151 L.Ed.2d 889 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jeffrey L. Estep v. Dallas County, Texas, William F. Peace, Conley, Officer J.C. Quillen
(2×)
See United States v. Jacquinot, 258 F.3d 423, 427-28 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 925 -26, 151 L.Ed.2d 889 (2002).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Bakwin v. Mardirosian
See, e.g., Tavenner v. Smoot, 257 F.3d 401, 406-407 (4th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1116 (2002); In re Swiontek, 316 B.R. 851, 861, 863-864 (Bankr.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Horton, 06ap-311 (8-23-2007)
See, also, State v. Murphy (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 516 , 534 , citing Davis , at 112, reconsideration denied, 92 Ohio St.3d 1451 , certiorari denied (2002), 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 926 . {¶ 23} Here, the trial court concluded that the photo array of six African-American males, which was computer-generated based upon parameters, such as race, age, length of hair, and facial hair, and which was separately shown to both victims, was comprised in a totally random manner.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Woogerd, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2007)
See, also, State v. Murphy (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 516 , 532 , 2001-Ohio-112 , reconsideration denied, 92 Ohio St.3d 1451 , certiorari denied (2002), 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 926 , quoting State v. Childs (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 56 , 62 , certiorari denied (1969), 394 U.S. 1002 , 89 S.Ct. 1596 (acknowledging that even constitutional rights may be lost by failing to assert them at a the proper time). {¶ 70} Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we overrule defendant's second assignment of error. *Page 26 {¶ 71} For the foregoing reasons, both of defendant's assignments of error are overr…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. May
South Dakota v. Opperman, supra at 372, 96 S.Ct. 3092 ; see also, Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 374 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987), United States v. Mayfield, supra at 1145, United States v. Hartje, 251 F.3d 771, 775-76 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 925 , 151 L.Ed.2d 889 (2002); see also, United States v. Wallace, 102 F.3d 346, 348 (8th Cir.1996)(“In other words, ‘[a]s long as impoundment pursuant to the community caretaking [or public safety] function is not a mere subterfuge for investigation, the coexistence of investigatory and caretaking [or pub…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Hicks
See also Tavenner v. Smoot (In re Smoot), 265 B.R. 128, 141-42 (Bankr.E.D.Va. 1999), aff'd 257 F.3d 401 (4th Cir.2001), cert. denied 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 926 , 151 L.Ed.2d 890 (2002) (holding that § 522(g) provides the conditions under which the debt- or may exempt property that the trustee recovers under §§ 544 and 550). 5 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Loston
Compare dicta in State v. Carter, 97-2902, pp. 32-33 (La.App. 4th Cir.5/10/00), 762 So.2d 662, 682 , writ denied, 00-1598 (La.6/15/01), 793 So.2d 1233 , cert denied, 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 926 , 151 L.Ed.2d 889 (2002). [8] Where, as here, defense counsel timely objects to the prosecutor's remarks and his objection is overruled, it is not necessary to move for a mistrial or request other corrective action in order to preserve the right to appellate review.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hartje
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 01-6918.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 22, 2002.
Published
C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.