green
Positive treatment
4.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies
See Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, 502 F.Supp. 1148 (D.Md.1980) aff’d, 661 F.2d 917 (4th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
cited
Cited "see"
Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
See Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 502 F.Supp. 1148 (D.Md. 1980), aff’d, 661 F.2d 917 (4th Cir.1981) (UP), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1060 , 102 S.Ct. 612 , 70 L.Ed.2d 599 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
See Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 502 F.Supp. 1148 (D.Md.1980), aff’d, 661 F.2d 917 (4th Cir.) [table], cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1060 , 102 S.Ct. 612 , 70 L.Ed.2d 599 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Glenda C. Brown v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc. Margaret Osmer-Mcquade, Kathleen T. Gardner, David L. Holton, Margaret Dixon, Val J. Halamandaris, Robert Weiner, Glenda C. Brown v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., Margaret Osmer-Mcquade, and Kathleen T. Gardner, David L. Holton, Margaret Dixon, Val J. Halamandaris, Robert Weiner
See Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 502 F.Supp. 1159, 1162-63 (D.Md.1980), aff'd., 661 F.2d 917 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1060 , 102 S.Ct. 612 , 70 L.Ed.2d 599 (1981). 53 Finally, we resolve the issue of whether the district court improperly excluded testimony from plaintiff's expert by directing the court to allow the parties time for additional discovery on remand.
cited
Cited "see"
Brown v. American Broadcasting Co.
See Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 502 F.Supp. 1159, 1162-63 (D.Md.1980), aff’d., 661 F.2d 917 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1060 , 102 S.Ct. 612 , 70 L.Ed.2d 599 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
St. John v. North Carolina Parole Commission
See id. at 792; see also Avery v. Maryland, 515 F.Supp. 818, 823 (D.Md.1980) (“[T]he presentation of expert testimony by the prosecution is neither mandated nor likely to be helpful to the jury in the routine obscenity case ... (and the) failure to provide such testimony is not a basis for habeas corpus relief”), aff'd 661 F.2d 917 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sandra A. Boddie v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. Geraldo Rivera Charles C. Thompson and Maravilla Production Company, Inc.
(2×)
See also Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 502 F.Supp. 1148 (D.Md.1980), affd mem., 661 F.2d 917 (4th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sandra Boddie v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. Geraldo Rivera Charles C. Thompson and Maravilla Production Company, Inc.
(2×)
See also Benford v. American B’dcasting Cos., 502 F.Supp. 1159, 1162-63 (D.Md.1980), aff’d mem., 661 F.2d 917 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1060 , 102 S.Ct. 612 , 70 L.Ed.2d 599 (1981) (Defendants’ purpose in taping the meeting raises a genuine issue of material fact for the jury.).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Barbour
v.
Stephenson
v.
Stephenson
80-8219.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jul 6, 1981.
661 F.2d 917
Published
Barbour
v.
Stephenson
80-8219
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fourth Circuit
7/6/81
1
E.D.N.C.
CPC DENIED--DISMISSED