green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.2 score
“if the government is found at any subsequent stage of the case either to have tendered an explanation that is not race neutral or to have acted with racial animus, the conviction must be overturned without regard to whether the defendant established a prima facie case.”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Holloway v. Horn
if the government is found at any subsequent stage of the case either to have tendered an explanation that is not race neutral or to have acted with racial animus, the conviction must be overturned without regard to whether the defendant established a prima facie case.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fricosu
See Boucher II, 2009 WL 424718 at *3 (citing In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992) (United States v. Doe), 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1091 , 114 S.Ct. 920 , 127 L.Ed.2d 214 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jerry Dejesus
(2×)
See United States v. Uwaezhoke, 995 F.2d 388, 394 (3d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1091 , 114 S.Ct. 920 , 127 L.Ed.2d 214 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Romey v. Vanyur
See Lips v. Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, 997 F.2d 808, 811 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1091 , 114 S.Ct. 920 , 127 L.Ed.2d 213 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Carretta
Even where some supporting evidence exists, a reviewing court will not set aside a factual finding unless the reviewing court has a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 92 (3d Cir.1992); see United States v. Uwaezhoke, 995 F.2d 388, 394 (3d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1091 , 114 S.Ct. 920 , 127 L.Ed.2d 214 (1994); In re Tempo Technology Corp., 202 B.R. 363, 367 (D.Del.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re DG Acquisition Corp.
Id. (internal citations omitted); see In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated October 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1091 , 114 S.Ct. 920 , 127 L.Ed.2d 214 (1994). 1.
discussed
Cited "see"
Lawrence L. Simmons v. Howard L. Beyer and the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, W. Cary Edwards
(2×)
See United States v. Uwaezhoke, 995 F.2d 388, 392 (3d Cir.1993) (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 358-59 , 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1865-66 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 920 , 127 L.Ed.2d 214 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Simmons v. Beyer
See United States v. Uwaezhoke, 995 F.2d 388, 392 (3d Cir. 1993) (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 358-59 , 111 S. Ct. 1859, 1865-66 (1991)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 920 (1994).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Seaver v. Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks
See also Lips v. Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, 997 F.2d 808, 811 (10th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1091 , 114 S.Ct. 920 , 127 L.Ed.2d 213 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McVane v. Federal Deposit Insurance
The gist of the protection is in the requirement, expressed in terms, that the disclosure sought shall not be unreasonable. 327 U.S. at 208 , 66 S.Ct. at 505 ; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir.1993) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, regardless of then-business or personal nature), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 920 , 127 L.Ed.2d 214 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Mcvane
The gist of the protection is in the requirement, expressed in terms, that the disclosure sought shall not be unreasonable. 52 327 U.S. at 208 , 66 S.Ct. at 505 ; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir.1993) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, regardless of their business or personal nature), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 920 , 127 L.Ed.2d 214 (1994). 53 In Morton Salt, the Court extended and refined the Oklahoma Press analysis.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Clay Properties, Inc.
Without a showing of pretext, however, these challenges may well not be unconstitutional, since they are not genderor race-based. 24 Id. at 1429 n. 16 (citing Hernandez, supra ); see United States v. Changco, 1 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir.) ("Whether a particular reason for striking jurors has a disproportionate effect on minorities is relevant to figuring out whether intentional discrimination has occurred; but disparate impact does not, by itself, a Batson violation make."), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 619 (1993); United States v. Uwaezhoke, 995 F.2d 388, 393 (3d Cir.1993) ("[T]he role of disparate i…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Maxwell
v.
First National Bank of Maryland
v.
First National Bank of Maryland
93-577.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 24, 1994.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. Pennsylvania (1)
Maxwell
v.
First National Bank of Maryland et al.
No. 93-577.
Supreme Court of United States.
January 24, 1994.
1
Appeal from the C. A. 4th Cir.
2
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 998 F. 2d 1009.