green
Positive treatment
2.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967
1996
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Dawson v. State
See United States v. Donato, 269 F.Supp. 921, 923 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd, 379 F.2d 288 (3d.
discussed
Cited "see"
American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Service
See, United States v. Donato, 269 F.Supp. 921 , (E.D.Pa.) aff'd 379 F.2d 288 (3rd Cir.1967); United States v. Bunkers, 521 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 989 , 96 S.Ct. 400 , 46 L.Ed.2d 307 (1975); Los Angeles Police Protective League v. Gates, 579 F.Supp. 36, 44 (C.D.Cal.1984). 4.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Benn v. United States
(2×)
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 228 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); see also Wehrle v. Brooks, 269 F.Supp. 785, 792 (W.D.N.C.1966) (“Positive identification of a person not previously known to the witness is perhaps the most fearful testimony known to file law of evidence.”), aff'd, 379 F.2d 288 (4th Cir.1967). .Webster v. United States, 623 A.2d 1198 , 1204 n. 15 (D.C. 1993) (quoting Crawley v. United States, 320 A.2d 309, 312 (D.C.1974)); see also Wade, 388 U.S. at 228 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 ("The vagaries of eyewitness identification are well known; the annals of criminal law ar…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Benn v. United States
See also Wehrle v. Brooks, 269 F.Supp. 785, 792 (W.D.N.C.1966), aff'd, 379 F.2d 288 (4th Cir.1967) ("[pjositive identification of a person not previously known to the witness is perhaps the most fearful testimony known to the law of evidence”); accord Webster, supra, 623 A.2d at 1204 (quoting Wehrle)', Jackson v. Fogg, 589 F.2d 108, 112 (2d Cir.1978) ("convictions based solely on testimony that identifies a defendant previously unknown to the witness are highly suspect”) (internal brackets omitted). 12 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Iqbal Jafree v. Scott
See, e. g., United States v. Donato, 379 F.2d 288 (3rd Cir. 1968); United States v. Collins, 349 F.2d 863 (2nd Cir. 1965); State v. Robinson, 86 N.J.Super. 308 , 206 A.2d 779 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Biehunik v. Felicetta
Compare United States v. Blok, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 326 , 188 F.2d 1019 (1951) (search of government employee’s desk unreasonable where desk permitted to be used for private storage) with United States v. Donato, 269 F.Supp. 921 (E.D.Pa.), aff’d mem., 379 F.2d 288 (3d Cir. 1967) (search of mint employee’s locker reasonable where lockers were regularly inspected for sanitary reasons, and regulation expressly negated private use). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Joseph Donato
v.
Joseph Donato
16369.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
May 9, 1967.
Published
UNITED STATES of America,
v.
Joseph DONATO, Appellant.
No. 16369.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued April 7, 1967.
Decided May 9, 1967.
Herman Bloom, Philadelphia, Pa. (Herbert Fisher, Bloom, Ocks & Fisher, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Robert St. Leger Goggin, Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (Drew J. T. O'Keefe, U.S. Atty., Harold S. O'Brian, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN and GANEY, Circuit Judges, and NEALON, Distrct Judge.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
1
On review of this record we find no error. The judgment of the District Court, 269 F.Supp. 921, will be affirmed upon the opinions of Judge Van Dusen therein.