green
Positive treatment
48.3 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 42 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Fire Star Energy Resources, LLC
Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 3 Defendant also asserted a counterclaim against plaintiff in its answer [Doc. 9, pp. 8–12]; however, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss as to this counterclaim in its prior Memorandum Opinion and Order [Doc. 26]. 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Fire Star Energy Resources, LLC
Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dougharty v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. of America
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gilbert v. City of Newport (TV2)
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams-Clabo v. City of Knoxville (TV2)
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Farley v. Potter (TV2)
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002). 3 Yet, “[o]nce the moving party presents evidence sufficient to support a motion under Rule 56, the nonmoving party is not entitled to a trial merely on the basis of allegations.” Curtis Through Curtis v. Universal Match Corp., 778 F. Supp. 1421, 1423 (E.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. JTEKT Automotive Tennessee - Morristown, Inc.
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pierce v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McCarter v. UT-Battelle LLC
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ingram v. ADT LLC
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Yost v. Wilhoit
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hamby v. Victor Hubbell Williams, PLLC
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Merriman v. Allstate Insurance Company
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Foster v. ROADTEC, Inc. (TV1)
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lyons v. Erie Insurance Company
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Chad Soderman
Discussion “We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo but review underlying factual determinations for clear error, giving ‘due weight’ to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials.” United States v. Robbins, 682 F.3d 1111, 1115 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir. 2002)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Webb v. Ethicon, Inc.
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hodge v. Beckstrom
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jordan v. Blount County
Co. Ltd v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Keifer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Perry v. Phillips (TV2)
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Greene v. Mercedes-Benz, USA
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Greene v. Mercedes-Benz, USA
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cottle v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Epley v. Walgreen Company (PLR1)
Co. Ltd v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Keifer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fritz v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation (TV1)
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wallace v. Roane County EMS - Ambulance Service
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Perry v. Carter County, Tennessee
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Eric-Arnaud Briere DE L'Isle
(2×)
In regard to factual determinations, this court "give[s] 'due weight' to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials." United States v. Robbins, 682 F.3d 1111, 1115 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir. 2002)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Terry Robbins
“We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo but review underlying factual determinations for clear error, giving ‘due weight’ to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials.” United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Wheat, 278 F.3d 722, 725-26 (8th Cir.2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dembry
While a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo, the court’s underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error, affording “due weight to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials.” United States v. Anderson, 339 F.3d 720, 723 (8th Cir.2003)(quoting United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir.2002)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Edward Dembry
While a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo, the court’s underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error, affording “due weight to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials.” United States v. Anderson, 339 F.3d 720, 723 (8th Cir. 2003)(quoting United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir. 2002)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dennis Wayne Hinkle, Sr.
“We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo but review underlying factual determinations for clear error, giving ‘due weight’ to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials.” United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Wheat, 278 F.3d 722, 725-26 (8th Cir.2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dennie Hinkle
“We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo but review underlying factual determinations for clear error, giving ‘due weight’ to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials.” United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Wheat, 278 F.3d 722, 725-26 (8th Cir. 2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Glen Lamar Bailey
When reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to suppress, we examine findings of fact for clear error, "giving 'due weight' to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials." United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir. 2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Glen Lamar Bailey
(2×)
When reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we examine findings of fact for clear error, “giving ‘due weight’ to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials.” United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir.2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Durrell Kaye Jackson, United States of America v. Dentonious Neville Washington, Also Known as Neal, Also Known as Neil, Also Known as Buck Mouth, United States of America v. Arthur Mabry, Also Known as Oscar
"We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo but review underlying factual determinations for clear error, giving `due weight' to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials." United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir. 2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Durrell Jackson
“We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo but review underlying factual determinations for clear error, giving ‘due weight’ to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials.” United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir.2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ronnie Ladale Anderson
The district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress is reviewed de novo, and the underlying factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, “giving ‘due weight’ to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials.” United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir.2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ronnie Anderson
The district court's denial of a defendant's motion to suppress is reviewed de novo, and the underlying factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, "giving 'due weight' to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials." United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir. 2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Luwana Walker
“We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo but review the underlying factual determinations for clear error, giving ‘due weight’ to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials.” United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Wheat, 278 F.3d 722, 725-26 (8th Cir. 2002)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Luwana Latrice Walker
“We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo but review the underlying factual determinations for clear error, giving ‘due weight’ to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials.” United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Wheat, 278 F.3d 722, 725-26 (8th Cir.2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joel Higuera
“We review the denial of the district court’s motion to suppress de novo but review the underlying factual determinations for clear error, giving ‘due weight’ to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials.” United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir.2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Lynn J. REPLOGLE, Appellant
v.
Lynn J. REPLOGLE, Appellant
02-1412.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Oct 28, 2002.
John M. Lefler, Lincoln, NE, for appellant., Nancy A. Svoboda, Asst. U.S. Atty., Omaha, NE, for appellee.
Riley, Beam, Melloy.
Cited by 45 opinions | Published
Citer courts: W.D. Missouri (4) · E.D. Missouri (2)
MELLOY, Circuit Judge.
Lynn J. Replogle, having entered a conditional guilty plea and having received sentence, now exercises his reserved right to appeal the district court’s [1] denial of a motion to suppress physical evidence. Mr. Replogle also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration and motion to vacate his conditional guilty plea. We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo but review underlying factual determinations for clear error, giving “due weight” to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials. United States v. Wheat, 278 F.3d 722, 725-26 (8th Cir.2001).
Law enforcement officials accompanied by Mr. Replogle’s Nebraska Probation Officer seized evidence during an unconsented and warrantless search of a house under Mr. Replogle’s possession and control. The district court correctly determined that no search warrant was required because the search was conducted pursuant to Mr. Replogle’s Nebraska Order of Probation. The terms of Mr. Replogle’s probation required him to grant probation officers and accompanying law enforcement officials consent to search property under his ownership, possession, or control. Mr. Replogle argues that, upon his refusal to consent to the search in this case, officials could have revoked his probation, but could not rightfully carry out the search. The district court rejected[*939] this argument, finding that warrantless search requirements in probation orders are generally considered reasonable, United States v. Vincent, 167 F.3d 428, 431 (8th Cir.1999), and that the requirement to grant consent did not actually impose on the probation officer a duty to obtain consent. The district court also correctly determined that the search was conducted for a probationary purpose and not merely for investigative purposes under the pretense of furthering the goals of probation.
Finding no clear error in the factual determinations of the district court, and concurring in the district court’s legal analysis based on those facts, we affirm.
1
. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, adopting the report and recommenda-lion of United Stales Magistrate Judge David Piester.