green
Positive treatment
6.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1961 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1961
1993
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sitaras
(2×)
See United States v. Alejandro, 368 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir.) (search warrant), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 907 , 125 S.Ct. 224 , 160 L.Ed.2d 184 (2004), quoting Leahy v. United States, 272 F.2d 487, 490 (9th Cir. 1959) ("[t]here is no constitutional mandate forbidding the use of deception in executing a valid arrest warrant"), cert. dismissed, 364 U.S. 945 , 81 S.Ct. 465 , 5 L.Ed.2d 459 (1961). [5] Although it appears that the defendant has completed his sentence, his appeal is not moot.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Harada
(4×)
See Leahy v. United States, 272 F.2d 487, 489 (9th Cir.1959) (distinguishing the facts of Leahy from cases in which the occupant had voluntarily opened the door and then attempted to close it because the element of force was not present in Leahy ), cert. granted, 363 U.S. 810 , 80 S.Ct. 1246 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1152 , cert. dismissed, 364 U.S. 945 , 81 S.Ct. 465 , 5 L.Ed.2d 459 (1961); Dickey v. United States, 332 F.2d 773, 777-78 (9th Cir.) (noting that, if the officers had obtained a *182 partial opening and had forced the door open the rest of the way to gain entrance, that would have been a "break…
discussed
Cited "see"
Metler v. State
(2×)
See Leahy v. United States, 272 F.2d 487, 489 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. denied 364 U.S. 945 , 81 S.Ct. 465 , 5 L.Ed.2d 459 (1961).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Eugene J. Matelich
(2×)
See Leahy v. United States, 272 F.2d 487, 488 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. granted, 363 U.S. 810 , 80 S.Ct. 1246 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1152 (1960), cert. dismissed, 364 U.S. 945 , 81 S.Ct. 465 , 5 L.Ed.2d 459 (1961).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert Johns and Herman Lee Griffin
(2×)
See Leahy v. United States, 9 Cir. 1959, 272 F.2d 487 , cert. denied, 364 U.S. 945 , 81 S.Ct. 465 , 5 L.Ed.2d 459 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Roberto Salgado
(2×)
The entry was not a “breaking open” of a door or window such as to require notice of authority and purpose. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3109 ; see Leahy v. United States, 272 F,2d 487 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. dismissed, 364 U.S. 945 , 81 S.Ct. 465 , 5 L.Ed.2d 459 (1961); cf. United States v. Price, 345 F.2d 256 , 260 n. 7 (2d Cir. 1965).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Iverson
(2×)
Compare Leahy v. Unit *6 ed States, 272 F.2d 487 (9 Cir. 1959), cert. dismissed, 364 U.S. 945 , 81 S.Ct. 465 , 5 L.Ed.2d 459 (1960), and Ponce v. Craven, 409 F.2d 621 (9 Cir. 1969), cert. den., 397 U.S. 1012 , 90 S.Ct. 1241 , 25 L.Ed.2d 424 (1970), with United States v. Phillips, 497 F.2d 1131 (9 Cir. 1974).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
v.
United States
v.
United States
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 23, 1961.
365 U.S. 801
1961 U.S. LEXIS 2085
James L. High-saw, Jr. and William G. Mahoney for applicants., Solicitor General Rankin and Robert W. Ginnane for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission, and Ral-ph L. McAfee, John H. Pickering and Richard D. Rohr for Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Co., in opposition.
Black, Grant, Stay.
Cited by 48 opinions | Published
An application was made to Mr. Justice Stewart for an order staying the decree of the three-judge district court in this case insofar as it terminated a temporary - restraining order previously entered. The application was referred by Mr. Justice Stewart to the Court. In the light of the representations made by Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Company, the application is denied without prejudice to its renewal upon the prompt docketing of the appeal.