green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
9.8 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1998 ·
…the per se reversal standard announced in diloreto, however, conflicts with the supreme court case law requiring the court to analyze prosecutorial comments ease by case, in the context of the entire trial, and reverse only where the defendant has suffered prejudice.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Pungitore
the per se reversal standard announced in diloreto, however, conflicts with the supreme court case law requiring the court to analyze prosecutorial comments ease by case, in the context of the entire trial, and reverse only where the defendant has suffered prejudice.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Merlino
the per se reversal standard announced in diloreto, however, conflicts with the supreme court case law requiring the court to analyze prosecutorial comments case by case, in the context of the entire trial, and reverse only where the defendant has suffered prejudice.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Narducci
the per se reversal standard announced in diloreto, however, conflicts with the supreme court case law requiring the court to analyze prosecutorial comments ease by case, in the context of the entire trial, and reverse only where the defendant has suffered prejudice.
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert a Bussian James J Keating v. Rjr Nabisco Incorporated
See Borst v. Chevron Corp., 36 F.3d 1308, 1320 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1066 , 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 561 (1995); District 65, U.A.W. v. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 576 F.Supp. 1468, 1477-78 (S.D.N.Y.1983); Daniel Fischel & J.H.
discussed
Cited "see"
Flanigan v. General Electric Co.
See Borst v. Chevron, 36 F.3d 1308, 1315 (5th Cir.1994) (concluding that, based on definition in Treasury regulations, “benefits accrued” in § 411(d)(3) does not encompass a right to a share of the surplus assets if not specified in the plan itself), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1066 , 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 561 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Courtney v. American Airlines, Inc.
See Borst v. Chevron Corp., 36 F.3d 1308, 1324 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1066 , 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 561 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Christopher Barnes
Accord United States v. Garcia, 37 F.3d 1359, 1370 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1067 , 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 562 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Lane
(2×)
See United States v. Garcia (9th Cir.1994), 37 F.3d 1359, 1368 , cert. denied (1995), 514 U.S. 1067 , 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 562 ; United States v. Hicks (9th Cir.1993), 997 F.2d 594, 597 ; Munoz-Dela Rosa, 495 F.2d at 256 . ¶ 40 After review of our statutory sentencing framework and mindful of the constitutional protections afforded criminal defendants, we now hold that the sentence orally pronounced from the bench in the presence of the defendant is the legally effective sentence and valid, final judgment.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Fukusaku
See id. (citing United States v. Garcia, 37 F.3d 1359, 1370-71 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1067 , 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 562 (1995)).
cited
Cited "see"
Hunt v. Hawthorn Associates, Inc.
See Borst v. Chevron Corp., 36 F.3d 1308 , 1311 n.2 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 561 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
21 Employee Benefits Cas. 1625, Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23936c, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 294 Harry L. Hunt v. Hawthorne Associates, Inc., Eastern Air Lines Variable Benefit Retirement Plan for Pilots Trust Administrative Committee of the Eastern Airlines Variable Benefit Retirement Plan for Pilots
See Borst v. Chevron Corp., 36 F.3d 1308 , 1311 n. 2 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1066 , 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 561 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hunt v. Hawthorne Associates, Inc.
(2×)
See Borst v. Chevron Corp., 36 F.3d 1308 , 1311 n. 2 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1066 , 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 561 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Susan Defelice v. American International Life Assurance Company of New York
See Borst v. Chevron Corp., 36 F.3d 1308, 1323-24 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 561 (1995); Cox v. Keystone Carbon Co., 894 F.2d 647, 649-50 (3d Cir.1990); Daniel v. Eaton Corp., 839 F.2d 263, 268 (6th Cir.1988); Howard v. Parisian, Inc., 807 F.2d 1560, 1566-67 (11th Cir.1987), Berry v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 761 F.2d 1003, 1006-07 (4th Cir.1985); Blau v. Del Monte Corp., 748 F.2d 1348, 1357 (9th Cir.1984); In re Vorpahl, 695 F.2d 318 (8th Cir.1982); Wardle v. Central States, S.E. & S.W.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Extradition of Gunther Lehming
See United States v. Garcia, 37 F.3d 1359 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 562 (1995) (under doctrine of dual criminality, defendant who had fled the United States could not be extradited or charged on the basis of 20 of 26 crimes alleged against him where 20 counts were not considered crimes in Luxembourg).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Josleyn
See United States v. Zehrbach, 47 F.3d 1252, 1264-65 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 562 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Josleyn
See United States v. ___ ______________ Zehrbach, 47 F.3d 1252, 1264-65 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. ________ _____ denied, 115 S. Ct. 1699 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael David Alston
(2×)
See United States v. Zehrbach, 47 F.3d 1252, 1261 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 562 (1995). 12 16 As earlier noted, the government conceded following trial that it had failed to prove that Alston knew it was illegal to avoid CTR's, and agreed that Alston's convictions for the substantive offense of structuring and conspiracy to structure should be vacated.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. George R. Gurs
See United States v. Garcia, 37 F.3d 1359, 1364 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1699 (1995) (holding that instruction very similar to the instruction in this case "fairly presented the elements of the money laundering statute" and was therefore not erroneous). 2.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Alston
See United States v. Zehrbach, 47 F.3d 1252, 1261 (3d Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1699 (1995).0 0 After the Supreme Court decided Ratzlaf, Congress eliminated the willfulness requirement for structuring convictions by amending 18 U.S.C. § 5324 to contain its own criminal penalty provision.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rodolfo Bethancourt
See United States v. Zehrbach, 47 F.3d 1252 (3d Cir.) cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 562 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES of America v. Darus H. ZEHRBACH, Appellant in No. 93-7477. Alex A. Mervis, Appellant in No. 93-7493
See 115 S.Ct. 1699 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hudson v. CIR
Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4421 (1981)); Hicks, 662 F.2d at 1168 ("the general rule is that if a judgment is appealed, collateral estoppel only works as to those issues specifically passed upon by the appellate court"); see also, Borst v. Chevron Corp., 36 F.3d 1308 , 1314 n.11 (5th Cir.) (noting that because the court did not consider an issue, "the district court's ruling on that issue is not conclusive between the parties"), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1699 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kentucky Bridge & Dam, Inc. v. United States
See, e.g., United States v. Garcia, 37 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, [514] U.S. [1067], 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 562 (1995); Y ane z v. 78 F.3d at 1565 . 9 The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has cited with approval a number of cases which discuss the implication of a settlement in a previous litigation and the subsequent refusal to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hawkeye National Life Insurance v. Avis Industrial Corp.
See, e.g., Borst v. Chevron Corp., 36 F.3d 1308, 1322 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied 514 U.S. 1066 , 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 561 *503 (1995); Johnson v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 19 F.3d 1184, 1190 (7th Cir. 1994); Chait v. Bernstein, 835 F.2d 1017, 1027 (3d Cir.1987); Financial Institutions Retirement Fund v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 766 F.Supp. 1302, 1308 (S.D.N.Y.1991), aff 'd by 964 F.2d 142 (2d Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
21 Employee Benefits Cas. 1469, Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23936b Hawkeye National Life Insurance Company v. Avis Industrial Corporation Edgerton Forge, Inc., Steel Technologies, Inc. Midwest Plating and Chemical Corporation, Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Allied Workers International Union Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Allied Workers International Union, Local 15 Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Allied Workers International Union, Local 24 Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Allied Workers International Union, Local 301 Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Allied Workers International Union, Local 305, Hawkeye National Life Insurance Company v. Avis Industrial Corporation Edgerton Forge, Inc., Steel Technologies, Inc. Midwest Plating and Chemical Corporation, Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Allied Workers International Union Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Allied Workers International Union, Local 15 Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Allied Workers International Union, Local 24 Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Allied Workers International Union, Local 301 Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Allied Workers International Union, Local 305
See, e.g., Borst v. Chevron Corp., 36 F.3d 1308, 1322 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied 514 U.S. 1066 , 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 561 (1995); Johnson v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 19 F.3d 1184, 1190 (7th Cir.1994); Chait v. Bernstein, 835 F.2d 1017, 1027 (3d Cir.1987); Financial Institutions Retirement Fund v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 766 F.Supp. 1302, 1308 (S.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd by 964 F.2d 142 (2d Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Johnstone
See, e.g., United States v. Messerlian, 832 F.2d 778, 789 (3d Cir. 1987). 4 Johnstone did not object to the jury charge in the district court, and so we can reverse in his favor only if any error made by the district court was “plain.” United States v. Zehrbach, 47 F.3d 1252 , 1260 n.6 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1699 (1995) (“Where a party has not made a clear, specific objection to the charge that he alleges is erroneous at trial, he waives the issue on appeal ‘unless the error was so fundamental and highly 6 The district court charged the jury as follows: “If you…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Data General Corporation v. Johnson
See e.g., United States v. Garcia, 37 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 562 (1995); Yanez v. United States, 989 F.2d 323, 326 (9th Cir.1993); In re Cassidy, 892 F.2d at 642 ; Scott v. Land Span Motor, Inc., 781 F.Supp. 1115, 1119 (D.S.C.1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Data General Corp. v. Johnson
See e.g., United States v. Garcia, 37 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 562 (1995); Yanez v. United States, 989 F.2d 323, 326 (9th Cir.1993); In re Cassidy, 892 F.2d at 642 ; Scott v. Land Span Motor, Inc., 781 F.Supp. 1115, 1119 (D.S.C.1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Warrick
The district court correctly granted appellees' [Rule 12(b)(6) ] motion to dismiss on this claim." Malia, 23 F.3d at 833; see also Borst v. Chevron Corp., 36 F.3d 1308, 1316 (5th Cir.1994) ("Nothing in ERISA ... mandates a distribution of any surplus assets on a partial termination [of a defined benefit pension plan]...."), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 561 (1995) 3 GE's principal place of business is in Fairfield, Connecticut; the text of the GE Plan may be reviewed at this location.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Warrick v. General Electric Co.
The district court correctly granted appellees’ [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss on this claim.” Malia, 23 F.3d at 833; see also Borst v. Chevron Corp., 36 F.3d 1308, 1316 (5th Cir.1994) ("Nothing in ERISA ... mandates a distribution of any surplus assets on a partial termination [of a defined benefit pension plan].... ”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1699 , 131 L.Ed.2d 561 (1995). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William O. Hayden
The government, however, contended that the “willfully violating” language of the penalty provision meant nothing, that “the 5324 offense is just what it would be if you never had 5322.” — U.S. at-n. 7, 114 S.Ct. at 659 n. 7: The Supreme Court rejected that argument, holding that courts should hesitate to treat statutory terms as “surplusage.” Id. — U.S. at —, 114 S.Ct. at 659 ; see also United States v. Zehrbach, 47 F.3d 1252, 1261 (3d Cir.) (in bane) (“The [Ratzlaf ] Court found that failure to read knowledge of illegality into a violation prosecuted under § 5322 would �…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hayden
The Supreme Court rejected that argument, holding that courts should hesitate to treat statutory terms as "surplusage." Id. at 659 ; see also United States v. Zehrbach, 47 F.3d 1252, 1261 (3d Cir.) (in banc) ("The [Ratzlaf] Court found that failure to read knowledge of illegality into a violation prosecuted under § 5322 would -- in light of § 5324's purposefulness requirement - - treat '§ 5322(a)'s willfulness' requirement essentially as surplusage."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1699 (1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Darus H. ZEHRBACH
v.
UNITED STATES
v.
UNITED STATES
No. 94-8462.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 17, 1995.
115 S. Ct. 1699
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: E.D. Pennsylvania (3)
[*1700] Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.