Piper Jaffray & Co. v. Shea, 546 U.S. 976 (2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Piper Jaffray & Co. v. Shea, 546 U.S. 976 (2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
53 citation events (53 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: John v. Guthrie v. State of Indiana (indctapp, 2014-07-18)
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" John v. Guthrie v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 679, 690 (Ind. 2005) (noting that “[a]n attorney is not required to anticipate changes in the law and object accordingly in order to be considered effective” (internal quotation omitted), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 976 (2005).
discussed Cited "see" Benham v. eCommission Solutions, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Plaintiffs argument that, because she filed New York State nonresident income tax returns and paid income taxes here, she is entitled to the “protections, benefits and values” of New York government, including the State and City HRL (Matter of Zelinsky v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 1 NY3d 85, 95 [2003], cert denied 541 US 1009 [2004]; see Matter of Huckaby v New York State Div. of Tax Appeals, Tax Appeals Trib., 4 NY3d 427, 438 [2005], cert denied 546 US 976 [2005]), is unavailing.
discussed Cited "see" Benham v. eCommission Solutions, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Plaintiffs argument that, because she filed New York State nonresident income tax returns and paid income taxes here, she is entitled to the “protections, benefits and values” of New York government, including the State and City HRL (Matter of Zelinsky v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 1 NY3d 85, 95 [2003], cert denied 541 US 1009 [2004]; see Matter of Huckaby v New York State Div. of Tax Appeals, Tax Appeals Trib., 4 NY3d 427, 438 [2005], cert denied 546 US 976 [2005]), is unavailing.
cited Cited "see" State v. Slater
Conn. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hammon v. State, 829 N.E.2d 444 (Ind.), cert. granted, 546 U.S. 976 , 126 S. Ct. 552 , 163 L.
discussed Cited "see" Solomon v. United States
6th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See U.S. v. Yoon, 398 F.3d 802, 806 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 548 , 163 L.Ed.2d 460 (2005); BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 8th ed.; Pierre N. Leval, Judging Under the Constitution: Dicta About Dicta, 81 N.Y.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wiley Jones v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence low
See generally Fix, 186 N.E.3d at 1144 (holding that whether certain offenses constitute a single episode of criminal conduct is a fact- intensive inquiry determined by the trial court); see also Estes v. State, 827 N.E.2d 27, 29 (Ind. 2005) (holding that “a court’s authority to order consecutive sentences was not affected by Blakely”) (citing Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 679, 686 (Ind. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 976 , 126 S. Ct. 545 (2005)).
Piper Jaffray & Co.
v.
Shea et ux. Piper Jaffray & Co. v. Daly et ux. Piper Jaffray & Co. v. Emett Piper Jaffray & Co. v. Berryman and Piper Jaffray & Co. v. Leary
No. 05-86.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 31, 2005.
546 U.S. 976
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.