green
Positive treatment
8.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Richardson
It may, however, be admissible to show motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent.”); Lyle, 125 S.C. at 415-16, 118 S.E. at 807 (South Carolina law precludes evidence of a defendant’s prior crimes or other bad acts to prove the defendant’s guilt for the crime charged except to establish (1) motive, (2) intent, (3) the absence of mistake or accident, (4) a common scheme or plan, or (5) the identity of the perpetrator.).
cited
Cited "see"
Joshua Salinas v. State
App. 2000); see United States v. Gould, 364 F.3d 578, 587 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 955 (2004); Cooksey v. State, 350 S.W.3d 177 , 185–87 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.).
cited
Cited "see"
Joshua Salinas v. State
App. 2000); see United States v. Gould, 364 F.3d 578, 587 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 955 (2004); Cooksey v. State, 350 S.W.3d 177 , 185–87 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.).
cited
Cited "see"
Joshua Salinas v. State
App. 2000); see United States v. Gould , 364 F.3d 578, 587 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 543 U.S. 955 (2004); Cooksey v. State , 350 S.W.3d 177 , 185–87 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.).
cited
Cited "see"
Joshua Salinas v. State
App. 2000); see United States v. Gould , 364 F.3d 578, 587 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 543 U.S. 955 (2004); Cooksey v. State , 350 S.W.3d 177 , 185–87 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.).
discussed
Cited "see"
A.W. v. The Jersey City Public Schools New Jersey Department of Education Jeffrey v. Osowski, Former Director, Division of Special Education Barbara Gantwerk, Director, Office of Special Education Programs Silvia Elias, Former. Executive Director of Pupil Personnel Services Priscilla Petrosky, Associate Superintendent for Special Education John Iwanowski Mary Hepburn Joan Edmiston Denise Braak Mary MacEachern Edward Fauerbach, Learning Disabilities Teacher-Consultants Norma Chrisomalis Gwendolyn Jackson Linda Colon Ronne Bassman William Ronzitti Roxanne Johnson, Supervisors of Special Education Sharnette Green, Teacher Melinda Zangrillo, Coordinator of Compliance Jane Doe and John Doe (1)-(5), All in Their Official and Individual Capacities. New Jersey Department of Education Jeffrey v. Osowski Melinda Zangrillo Barbara Gantwerk
See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (holding denial of claim of qualified immunity is appealable as a "final decision"). 7 We will engage in plenary review of a district court's summary judgment ruling on qualified immunity, Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d 772, 775 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 956 , 125 S.Ct. 453 , 160 L.Ed.2d 317 (2004), and apply the same summary judgment standard that guided the district court, Rivas v. City of Passaic, 365 F.3d 181, 193 (3d Cir.2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake
See Anderson v. Spear, 356 F.3d 651, 664-65 (6th Cir.2004) (“[McConnell ] nonetheless left in tact the ability of course to make distinctions between express advocacy and issue advocacy where such distinctions are necessary to cure vagueness and overbreadth .... ”), cert, denied, 543 U.S. 956 , 125 S.Ct. 453 , 160 L.Ed.2d 317 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Pharmaceutical Sales Consulting Corp. v. Accucorp Packaging, Inc.
See United States v. Lee, 359 F.3d 194, 204-05 (3d Cir.2004) (the statute reaches all breaches of duty, including the duty to refrain from self-dealing), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 955 , 125 S.Ct. 408 , 160 L.Ed.2d 316 (2004); Cameco, Inc. v. Gedicke, 157 N.J. 504 , 724 A.2d 783, 789 (1999) (employee’s self-dealing may breach the duty of loyalty).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Semon
(2×)
See Steagald v. U.S., 451 U.S. 204 , 101 S.Ct. 1642 , 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981). [4] This is so, even assuming, arguendo, that the mother's consent was not voluntary, a claim expressly rejected by the trial court. [5] See Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765 , 103 S.Ct. 3319 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1983). [6] U.S. v. Gould, 364 F.3d 578 (5th Cir.2004), cert denied, Gould v. U.S., 543 U.S. 955 , 125 S.Ct. 437 , 160 L.Ed.2d 317 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Anderson
See United States v. Gould, 364 F.3d 578 , 587 n. 9 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 437 , 160 L.Ed.2d 317 (2004).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Pimentel v. United States
Id.; see also United States v. Pimentel, 346 F.3d 285, 305 (2d Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 955 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ramon Rios, III v. the State of Texas
Once he was found, however, the search for him was over, and there was no longer that particular justification for entering any rooms that had not yet been searched.”). 11 Id. at 337 ; see also United States v. Mendez, 431 F.3d 420, 428 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Gould, 364 F.3d 578, 587 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 955 (2004)); Torrez, 34 S.W.3d at 17 (“[A] police officer may only conduct a protective sweep of a residence where he possesses an objectively reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that a person in the area poses a dange…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
the Texas Education Agency and Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in His Official Capacity v. Academy of Careers and Technologies, Inc. D/B/A Academy of Careers and Technologies Charter School
We at 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701 ); see also Phillips v. Washington granted certiorari. 543 U.S. 955 , 125 S.Ct. 417 , 160 Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156, 164 , 118 S.Ct. 1925 , L.Ed.2d 316 (2004). 141 L.Ed.2d 174 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Deavers v. Vasquez
See, e.g., Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d 772 (3d Cir.2004) (recognizing excessively tight handcuffing constitutes excessive force), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 956 , 125 S.Ct. 453 , 160 L.Ed.2d 317 (2004); Martin v. Heideman, 106 F.3d 1308 (6th Cir.1997) (construing “excessively forceful handcuffing” as excessive force claim).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Legros
See People v. Leonardo, 89 A.D.2d 214, 215-16 , 455 N.Y.S.2d 434, 435-36 (4th Dep’t 1982) (finding evidence insufficient to support intent to cause serious physical injury where defendant aims gun at tree), aff'd, 60 N.Y.2d 683 , 455 N.E.2d 1261 , 468 N.Y.S.2d 466 (1983); see also United States v. Pimentel, 346 F.3d 285, 298 (2d Cir.2003) (stating that under New York law of attempts, defendant must engage in conduct that comes “dangerously near” commission of the completed crime, and that “[i]n the context of attempted murder prosecutions ... the Government must establish that the defe…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Legros
See People v. Leonardo, 89 A.D.2d 214 , 2 215-16, 455 N.Y.S.2d 434, 435-36 (4th Dep't 1982) (finding 3 evidence insufficient to support intent to cause serious physical 4 injury where defendant aims gun at tree), aff'd, 60 N.Y.2d 683 , 5 455 N.E.2d 1261 , 468 N.Y.S.2d 466 (1983); see also United States 6 v. Pimentel, 346 F.3d 285, 298 (2d Cir. 2003) (stating that under 7 New York law of attempts, defendant must engage in conduct that 8 comes "dangerously near" commission of the completed crime, and 9 that "[i]n the context of attempted murder prosecutions . . . the 10 Government must establish…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Mullens
(2×)
The Fifth Circuit reasoned: Once Brathwaite invited the CI into his home, he "forfeited his privacy interest in those activities that were exposed to [the CI]." United States v. Davis, 326 F.3d 361, 366 (2d Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 908 , 124 S.Ct. 281 , 157 L.Ed.2d 196 (2003); see also United States v. Lee, 359 F.3d 194, 201 (3d Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 955 , 125 S.Ct. 408 , 160 L.Ed.2d 316 (2004) ("The principle underlying the governing Supreme Court cases is that if a defendant consents to the presence of a person who could testify about a meeting and is willing to reveal w…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Invention Submission Corp.
v.
Dudas, as Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce
v.
Dudas, as Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce
04-40.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 1, 2004.
Published
INVENTION SUBMISSION CORP.
v.
DUDAS, AS UNDERSECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
No. 04-40.
Supreme Court of United States.
November 1, 2004.
1
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 357 F. 3d 452.