United States v. Louis Joseph Marion Marvin Ives, 547 F.2d 1100 (9th Cir. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Louis Joseph Marion Marvin Ives, 547 F.2d 1100 (9th Cir. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
47 citation events (27 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Eddie Lee Anthony (wis, 2015-03-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see, e.g." State v. Eddie Lee Anthony (4×)
Wis. · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Ives, 504 F.2d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 1974), vacated on other grounds, 421 U.S. 944 (1975), opinion reinstated in relevant part, 547 F.2d 1100 (9th Cir. 1976) (holding that a defendant may forfeit the privilege to testify through conduct); Douglas v. State, 214 P.3d 312, 322 (Alaska 2009) (applying the Allen standards to determine whether the defendant forfeited his right to testify in person through misconduct); State v. Chapple, 36 P.3d 1025, 1033-34 (Wash. 2001) (relying on Allen and Ives to determine whether the 22 No. 2013AP467-CR defendant lost his right to testif…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Louis Joseph Marion Marvin IVES, Defendant-Appellant
73-1726.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 22, 1977.
547 F.2d 1100
Mark E. Vovos (argued), of Bovey & Vovos, Spokane, Wash., Kelly Hancock (argued), Omak, Wash., for defendant-appellant., Robert S. Linnell, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Spokane, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
Duniway, Per Curiam, Wallace, Wollenberg.
Cited by 35 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Our opinion in this case, 504 F.2d 935, was filed August 9, 1974. Ives petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari which was granted, 421 U.S. 944, 95 S.Ct. 1671, 44 L.Ed.2d 97.

Thereafter, the Court ordered “that the judgment of the said United States Court of Appeals in this cause be, and the same is hereby, vacated; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975).” See 421 U.S. 944, 95 S.Ct. 1671, 44 L.Ed.2d 97 (1975).

An examination of Drope makes clear that the only issues which the Court has directed us to consider further are found in part II of our opinion. Therefore, we reinstate parts I, III and IV of our opinion.

The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings pertaining to the issues contained in part II of our opinion in light of Drope, as well as DeKaplany v. Enomoto, 540 F.2d 975 (9th Cir. 1976) (en banc).