green
Positive treatment
0.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
People v. JOE T.
Code, § 707; Bryan v. Superior Court, supra, 7 Cal.3d 575 ; but see Jones v. Breed (9th Cir.) 497 F.2d 1160 , cert, granted in 419 U.S. 894 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 138 , 95 S.Ct. 172 ].) We recognize that the standards for determining a minor’s fitness for treatment as a juvenile lack explicit definition (Jimmy H. v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.3d 709, 714 ) and that the juvenile court’s statement of reasons for finding the minor unfit need not include conventional findings of fact.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Francis Bloeth v. Ernest L. Montanye, Superintendent
(2×)
See, e. g., Newkirk v. Butler, 499 F.2d 1214, 1217 (2d Cir. 1974), cert. granted, --- U.S. ---, 95 S.Ct. 172 , 42 L.Ed.2d 138 (1974); Gomes v. Travisono, 490 F.2d 1209, 1213-14 (1st Cir. 1973), remanded, 418 U.S. 909 , 94 S.Ct. 3200 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1155 (1974) (relying on Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), setting minimum due process requirements in prison disciplinary hearings); United States ex rel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Securities Investor Protection Corp.
v.
Barbour
v.
Barbour
No. 73-2055.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 21, 1974.
Published
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to the following questions:
1. Whether customers of a Member have an implied private right of action to compel SIPC to meet its alleged obligations to them under the Act, despite § 7 (b) thereof which grants that right only to the Securities and Exchange Commission?
2. If such a right of action can be implied, whether a receiver of a Member has standing to maintain it?