green
Positive treatment
16.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. John Mellies
(3×)
See United States v. MacEwan, 445 F.3d 237, 239 (3d Cir.2006) (holding that “use of the Internet satisfies the interstate commerce element of the federal law prohibiting the receipt of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(B)”), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 882 , 127 S.Ct. 208 , 166 L.Ed.2d 144 (2006); United States v. Runyan, 290 F.3d 223, 239 (5th Cir.2002) (“We join the First Circuit in holding that ‘transmission of photographs by means of the Internet is tantamount to moving photographs across state lines and thus constitutes transportation in interstate commerce’ for the purpose…
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: Seven Fields
See City & County of San Francisco v. PG&E Corp., 433 F.3d 1115 , 1122 (9th Cir.) (holding that section 1447(d) does not apply to decisions not to remand a case), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 208 (2006); In re Bissonnet Invs.
discussed
Cited "see"
Geruschat v. Ernst Young LLP
See City & County of San Francisco v. PG & E Corp., 433 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir.) (holding that section 1447(d) does not apply to decisions not to remand a case), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 208 , 166 L,Ed.2d 144 (2006); In re Bissonnet Invs.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: Seven Fields
See City & County of San Francisco v. PG&E Corp., 433 F.3d 1115 , 1122 (9th Cir.) (holding that section 1447(d) does not apply to decisions not to remand a case), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 208 (2006); In re Bissonnet Invs.
discussed
Cited "see"
Geruschat v. Ernst Young LLP (In Re Seven Fields Development Corp.)
(2×)
See City & County of San Francisco v. PG & E Corp., 433 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir.) (holding that section 1447(d) does not apply to decisions not to remand a case), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 208 , 166 L.Ed.2d 144 (2006); In re Bissonnet Invs.
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Schaefer
(4×)
See United States v. MacEwan, 445 F.3d 237, 244 (3d Cir.2006), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 208 , 166 L.Ed.2d 144 (2006) (adopting a mode of analysis, under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A, that directly equates Internet use with interstate commerce); United States v. Carroll, 105 F.3d 740, 742 (1st Cir.1997) (stating that transmission of photographs via the Internet is "tantamount to" moving them through interstate commerce for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (a)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael Walker
(2×)
See United States v. MacEwan, 445 F.3d 237 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 208 , 166 L.Ed.2d 144 (2006); see also United States v. Frank, 864 F.2d 992, 1010 (3d Cir.1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Walker
See United States v. MacEwan, 445 F.3d 237 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 208 (2006); see also United States v. Frank, 864 F.2d 992, 1010 (3d Cir. 1988).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Saluti
(3×)
Sommer eds., 16th ed.2010); see also City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. PG & E Corp., 433 F.3d 1115 ,1123-24 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 882 , 127 S.Ct. 208 , 166 L.Ed.2d 144 (2006); In re Commerce Oil Co., 847 F.2d 291, 295 (6th Cir.1988); In re McAtee, 162 B.R. 574, 577-78 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ronald Sutton
Indeed, "[w]hen a district court adequately explains why it imposed a particular sentence ... we do not further require that it exhaustively explain the obverse — why an alternative sentence was not selected — in every instance.” United States v. Gale, 468 F.3d 929, 940 (6th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 30 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 882 , 127 S.Ct. 192 , 166 L.Ed.2d 143 (2006) ("[W]e will not conclude that a district judge shirked her obligation to consider the § 3553(a) factors simply because she did not discuss each one individually!.]”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Simmons
(2×)
“When a district court adequately explains why it imposed a particular sentence, especially one within the advisory Guidelines range, we do not further require that it exhaustively explain the obverse — why an alternative sentence was not selected in every instance.” United States v. Gale, 468 F.3d 929 (6th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 30 (2d Cir.2006) (“[W]e will not conclude that a district judge shirked her obligation to consider the § 3553(a) factors simply because she did not ... address every argument relating to those factors that the defendant a…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Irving
See, e.g., United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 30 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 882 , 127 S.Ct. 192 , 166 L.Ed.2d 143 (2006).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PG & E CORPORATION
v.
CALIFORNIA, ex rel. Bill LOCKYER, Attorney General of California
v.
CALIFORNIA, ex rel. Bill LOCKYER, Attorney General of California
No. 06-33.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 2, 2006.
Cited by 14 opinions | Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.