G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…would 'penalize the government for failing to introduce evidence on probable cause for arrest or other matters bearing on the fourth amendment claim when defendant's failure to raise an objection before or during trial seemed to make such a showing unnecessary.
at p. 368
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Lopez-Llamas
we can find obvious error here only if the facts in the record compel the conclusion that the seizure was illegal. no facts appear in this record to convince us that the evidence should have been suppressed . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Miller
LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.7(e), at 584 (5th ed. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Meadows, 523 F.2d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 970 , 96 S. Ct. 1469 (1976)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ricky Germaine Atkins
Atkins claims that “the government did not provide an excuse for the delay.” But in reviewing for plain error, “we cannot penalize the Government for failing to introduce evidence” regarding its actions when Atkins’s failure to timely move for suppression “seemed to make such a showing unnecessary.” See United States v. Meadows, 523 F.2d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 1975).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Guy Stephen Wertz, United States of America v. George William Vaughn, United States of America v. Thomas Jefferson Clyburn
United States v. Williams, 544 F.2d at 1219 ; United States v. Meadows, 523 F.2d at 368. 6 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Kasper
Cf. United States v. Meadows, 523 F.2d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 1975) (plain error can be invoked only where irregularity was obvious or manifest).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ramon Milian-Rodriguez
See United States v. Meadows, 523 F.2d 365 , 368 & n. 5 (5th Cir.1975) (plain error rule applicable only when error is manifest and substantial), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 970 , 96 S.Ct. 1469 , 47 L.Ed.2d 738 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
Sims v. Commissioner
See Brown v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 551 , 555-556 (1974) , affd. 523 F. 2d 365 (8th Cir. 1975) ; Gruwald v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. 108 , 115 (1968) .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lonnie M. Brown, Robert L. Newsome, James B. Finney, Julian E. Seymour, Jr., and Benjamin Clyde Cranford, Jr.
See also United States v. Meadows, 523 F.2d 365 , 368 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1975), cert, denied, 424 U.S. 970 , 96 S.Ct. 1469 , 47 L.Ed.2d 738 (1976).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Donald H. BROWN, Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee
74-1989.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Sep 24, 1975.
James Q. Fisher, Encino, Cal., and Joel Kreiner, Hollywood, Cal., for appellant., Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gilbert E. Andrews, Jonathan S. Cohen and Arthur L. Bailey, Attys., Tax Division, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Vogel, Heaney, Stephenson.
Cited by 6 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal the appellant-taxpayer contends that the Tax Court erred in denying as a tax deduction for medical expense the cost of Scientology “processing” for himself and his wife, including transportation for his wife’s attendance at the.Hubbard College of Scientology in Sussex, England, and in Edinborough, Scotland. We reject appellant’s contentions and affirm the judgment of the Tax Court on the basis of its well-reasoned and comprehensive opinion. See Rule 14.