green
Positive treatment
3.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Cooksey v. State
See United States v. Alsobrook, 620 F.2d 139, 142 (6th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 124 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980); United States v. Pavloski, 574 F.2d 933, 936 (7th Cir.1978); United States v. Starks, 515 F.2d 112, 116-17 (3d Cir.1975); State v. Lomagro, 113 Wis.2d 582 , 335 N.W.2d 583 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Neblock
See United States v. Alsobrook, 620 F.2d 139, 142 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 124 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980); 1 C.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Joe S. Duncan and Michael M. Downing
See United States v. Alsobrook, 620 F.2d 139, 142 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 124 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980); 1 C.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Emile Mitchell Robin
See United States v. Alsobrook, 620 F.2d 139 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 124 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980) (consolidation in one count of six trips in interstate commerce in violation of Travel Act proper).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Nicholas Anthony Moccia
See United States v. Sinn, 622 F.2d 415, 416 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 124 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Upton
See, e.g., United States v. Alsobrook, 620 F.2d 139, 142-43 (6th Cir.) (inclusion of more than one act of interstate travel in a single count alleging a violation of The Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952 , is not impermissibly duplicitous because each act was part of a continuing course of conduct that represented only a single offense), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 124 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Levine
See, e.g., United States v. Alsobrook, 620 F.2d 139, 143 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 124 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980); United States v. Margi- *1438 otta, 646 F.2d 729, 732-33 (1981); see also United States v. Gambino, 729 F.Supp. 954, 971-72 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (“[a] count of an indictment should only be ruled impermissibly duplicitous when the policy goals underlying the doctrine are offended....”); United States v. Finley, 705 F.Supp. 1272, 1295 (N.D.Ill.1988); United States v. Sugar, 606 F.Supp. 1134, 1146 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (same); United States v. Mott, 603 F.Supp. 1322, 1325…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Castellano
See, e.g., United States v. Also-brook, 620 F.2d 139, 142-43 (6th Cir.) (several violations of Travel Act “that occurred within a short period of time and that involved the same defendant” not duplicitous), ce rt. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 124 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mazur
v.
Pennsylvania
v.
Pennsylvania
No. 79-2055.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1980.
Published
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.