green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Joseph v. Malinauskas v. United States
See Marvel v. United States, 380 U.S. 262 , 85 S.Ct. 953 , 13 L.Ed.2d 960 (1965); United States v. Blair, 5 Cir., 1972, 470 F.2d 331 . 9 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Ex Rel. Sheldon Leeson v. Daniel E. Damon, Superintendent of Elmira Reformatory
(2×)
See Marvel v. United States, 380 U.S. 262 , 85 S.Ct. 953 , 13 L.Ed.2d 960 (1965) (per curiam); Wells v. United States, 452 F.2d 1001, 1003 (5th Cir. 1971); Wade v. Wainwright, 420 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1969); Kotz v. United States, 353 F.2d 312, 314 (8th Cir. 1965); Matthews v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 456 (S.D.N.Y.1969); McCullough v. United States, 231 F.Supp. 740 (N.D.Fla.1964).
discussed
Cited "see"
Michael J. Schell v. United States
(2×)
See Marvel v. United States (1965), 380 U.S. 262 , 85 S.Ct. 953 , 13 L.Ed.2d 960 vacating the judgment in 335 F.2d 101 (1964); Workman v. United States (1st Cir., 1964), 337 F.2d 226 (going a step beyond Pilkington) ; Williams v. United States (E.D.Ky., 1964), 231 F.Supp. 382 ; United States v. DeMario (E.D.Mich., 1965), 246 F.Supp. 786 ; Rowe v. United States (W.D.Wis., 1964), 227 F.Supp. 666 ; Kotz v. United States (8th Cir., 1965), 353 F.2d 312 ; Freeman v. United States (9th Cir., 1965), 350 F.2d 940 ; King v. United States (10th Cir., 1965), 346 F.2d 159 ; Carter v. United States, 113 U.S…
discussed
Cited "see"
Matthews v. United States
See Marvel v. United States, 380 U.S. 262 , 85 S.Ct. 953 , 13 L.Ed.2d 960 (1965), vacating 335 F.2d 101 (5th Cir.1964); Pilkington v. United States, 315 F.2d 204 (4th Cir.1963); James v. United States, 388 F.2d 453 (5th Cir.1968); Harper v. United States, 368 F.2d 53 (10th Cir.1966); Freeman v. United States, 350 F.2d 940 (9th Cir.1965); Workman v. United States, 337 F.2d 226 (1st Cir.1964); Brown v. United States, 248 F.Supp. 146 (D.Minn.1965); Rowe v. United States, 227 F.Supp. 666 (W.D.Wis.1964); 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 173 (1969); 8 Moore, Federal Practice ¶¶11.03[3…
discussed
Cited "see"
Brown v. United States
Freeman v. United States, 9 Cir., 350 F.2d 940 ; King v. United States, 10 Cir., 346 F.2d 159 ; Chapin v. United States, 10 Cir., 341 F.2d 900 ; Pilkington v. United States, 4 Cir., 315 F.2d 204 ; Young Hee Choy v. United States, 9 Cir., 322 F.2d 64, 66 (note 9); Rawls v. United States, D.C.W.D.Mo., 236 F.Supp. 821 ; Rowe v. United States, D.C.W.D.Wis., 227 F.Supp. 666 ; Williams v. United States, D.C.E.D.Ky., 231 F.Supp. 382 ; McCullough v. United States, D.C.N.D.Fla., 231 F.Supp. 740 ; Marvel v. United States, 380 U.S. 262 , 85 S.Ct. 953 , 13 L.Ed.2d 960 ; Hale v. United States, 10 Cir., 347…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Burton v. Terrell
See also Marvel v. United States, 380 U.S. 262 , 85 S.Ct. 953 , 13 L.Ed.2d 960 (1965) (per curiam) (vacating and remanding for a hearing to determine whether the defendant was misled by the trial court as to the maximum sentence). 9 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
William Carl Mixon v. United States
See, e. g., Marvel v. United States, 380 U.S. 262 , 85 S.Ct. 953 , 13 L.Ed.2d 960 (1965); 8 Moore’s Federal Practice H 11.01/3/, at 11-6 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Linton K. Mordecai, Jr. v. United States
(2×)
See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). . 315 F.2d 204 (4th Cir. 1963) ; see also Marvel v. United States, 380 U.S. 262 , 85 S.Ct. 953 , 13 L.Ed.2d 960 (1965), vacating 335 F.2d 101 (5tli Cir. 1964) ; Harper v. United States, 368 F.2d 53 (10th Cir. 1966). .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Ronald James Minshew v. United States
Compare Marvel v. United States, 1965, 380 U.S. 262 , 85 S.Ct. 953 , 13 L.Ed.2d 960 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
GENOVESE
v.
OHIO
v.
OHIO
No. 794.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 15, 1965.
Appellant pro se., Fred V. Skok, Barry M. Byron and Alan D. Wright for appellee.
Published
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.