green
Positive treatment
6.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Graham
In response, the State argues that it was entitled to test the credibility of defendant’s testimony, because “[a] testifying defendant is subject to impeachment by cross-examination generally to the same extent as any other witness,” State v. Lester, 289 N.C. 239, 245 , 221 *194 S.E.2d 268, 272 (1976), especially when it concerns his silence before he was arrested, Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 238 , 66 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Pethel v. McBride
(2×)
See, Fasano v. Hall, 615 F.2d 555, 558 (1st Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 867 , 101 S.Ct. 201 , 66 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980) (violations of IAD are not “fundamental defects” indicating a “miscarriage of justice” so as to be cognizable in federal habeas proceeding); Reilly v. Warden, FCI Petersburg, 947 F.2d 43, 44 (2nd Cir.1991) (per curiam), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1115 , 112 S.Ct. 1227 , 117 L.Ed.2d 462 (1992), (violation of IAD not basis for federal habeas relief); Browning v. Foltz, 837 F.2d 276, 283 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1018 , 109 S.Ct. 816 , 102 L.Ed.2d 805 (1989) (v…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ramirez
See Hoo, 825 F.2d at 670 (interpreting juvenile as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 5031 to “apply only to criminal proceedings that begin before the defendant reaches the age of twenty-one”); see also United States v. Smith, 851 F.2d 706, 710 (4th Cir.1988) (concluding that jurisdiction under the JDA does not terminate when a defendant reaches the age of twenty-one); accord United States v. Doe, 631 F.2d 110, 113 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 867 , 101 S.Ct. 202 , 66 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980); United States v. Rivera, 912 F.Supp. 70, 75 (S.D.N.Y.1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Juan Ramirez, Also Known as \Tony Tko\"
See Hoo, 825 F.2d at 670 (interpreting juvenile as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 5031 to "apply only to criminal proceedings that begin before the defendant reaches the age of twenty-one"); see also United States v. Smith, 851 F.2d 706, 710 (4th Cir.1988) (concluding that jurisdiction under the JDA does not terminate when a defendant reaches the age of twenty-one); accord United States v. Doe, 631 F.2d 110, 113 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 867 , 101 S.Ct. 202 , 66 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980); United States v. Rivera, 912 F.Supp. 70, 75 (S.D.N.Y.1995). 27 In addition, in Smith and Doe, the Fourth and Nin…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. John Doe
See United States v. Doe, 631 F.2d 110, 112-13 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 867 , 101 S.Ct. 202 , 66 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980); United States v. Brian N., 900 F.2d 218, 221 (10th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Brian N. (A Juvenile Male), United States of America v. Craig J.B. (A Juvenile Male)
(2×)
See United States v. Doe, 631 F.2d 110, 112-13 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 867 , 101 S.Ct. 202 , 66 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980); In re Martin, 788 F.2d 696, 697-98 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1009 , 106 S.Ct. 3306 , 92 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Won Tae Kim
See United States v. Gonzalez, 617 F.2d 104, 107 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 868 , 101 S.Ct. 202 , 66 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980); United States v. Brown, 348 F.2d 661, 662 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 904 , 86 S.Ct. 240 , 15 L.Ed.2d 157 (1965).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Raymond Leroy Talkington
See United States v. Gonzalez, 617 F.2d 104, 106 (5th Cir.) (defendant hid roll of counterfeit bills while under arrest), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 868 , 101 S.Ct. 202 , 66 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980). 3 .
cited
Cited "see"
Christopher Martens v. James Shannon, Attorney General
See Fasano v. Hall, 615 F.2d 555, 558 (1st Cir.) (claimed IAD violations "generally not cognizable in a habeas proceeding”), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 867 , 101 S.Ct. 201 , 66 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980».
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Roger William Rice and James Gregory Williford
See Defendant's Exhibit 4 3 Since only defendant Rice used the $20 bill to purchase film, facts (3) and (5) supra are not relevant with regard to defendant Williford 4 "Furtive conduct" more appropriately applies to attempts to hide counterfeit money, see, e. g., United States v. Gonzalez, 617 F.2d 104 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 202 , 66 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980), than to simply giving a false name to police officers.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Milton Wayne Seymore v. State of Alabama, Leoneal Davis, Warden, and the Attorney General of the State of Alabama
See, e.g., Fasano v. Hall, 615 F.2d 555, 558 (1st Cir.) (alleged violation of Article III's speedy trial provision and other alleged lAD violations un-cognizable under section 2254 because violations are "not `fundamental defects' indicating a `miscarriage of justice' "), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 867 , 101 S.Ct. 201 , 66 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980); Edwards v. United States, 564 F.2d 652, 654 (2d Cir.1977) (per curiam) (alleged violation of Article IV's anti-shuttling provision uncognizable under section 2255 because violation did not re-suit "in a complete miscarriage of justice"); Kerr v. Finkbeiner, 75…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cooper
v.
Indiana
v.
Indiana
No. 79-6878.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1980.
Published
Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.