green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
8.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1994 ·
…it is clear that a witness who is unavailable because he has invoked the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination is unavailable under the terms of 804(a)(1)
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Kimball
(2×)
it is clear that a witness who is unavailable because he has invoked the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination is unavailable under the terms of 804(a)(1)
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Salerno
(2×)
See United States v. Young Bros., Inc., 728 F.2d 682, 691 (5th Cir.) ("This concern is not present in this case because it was the party offering the testimony, the appellant, who had not had the opportunity to cross-examine."), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 881 , 105 S.Ct. 246 , 83 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984); United States v. Vigoa, 656 F.Supp. at 1505 ("By conditioning admission upon proof that the party against whose interest the testimony is offered was adequately represented during the development of the testimony, Rule 804(b)(1) incorporates considerations of adversarial fairness into the evidentiary a…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Salerno
(2×)
See United States v. Young Bros., Inc., 728 F.2d 682, 691 (5th Cir.) (“This concern is not present in this case because it was the party offering the testimony, the appellant, who had not had the opportunity to cross-examine.”), ce rt. denied, 469 U.S. 881 , 105 S.Ct. 246 , 83 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984); United States v. Vigoa, 656 F.Supp. at 1505 (“By conditioning admission upon proof that the party against whose interest the testimony is offered was adequately represented during the development of the testimony, Rule 804(b)(1) incorporates considerations of adversarial fairness into the eviden…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Noriega
(2×)
See United States v. Kostadinov, 734 F.2d 905, 912 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 881 , 105 S.Ct. 246 , 83 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984); United States v. Arizti, 229 F.Supp. at 54-55 ; United States v. Coplon, 88 F.Supp. at 920 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gregorio C. Perez, Jr., AKA \Junior\" Perez"
(2×)
See United States v. Young Bros., Inc., 728 F.2d 682 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 246 , 83 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984); United States v. Owens, 334 F.Supp. 1030, 1031 (D.C.Minn.1971); United States v. Campbell, 235 F.Supp. 94, 96 (D.C.Tenn.1964).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gregorio C. Perez, Jr., AKA \Junior\" Perez"
(2×)
See United States v. Young Bros., Inc., 728 F.2d 682 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 246 , 83 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984); United States v. Owens, 334 F.Supp. 1030, 1031 (D.C.Minn.1971); United States v. Campbell, 235 F.Supp. 94, 96 (D.C.Tenn.1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cain
(2×)
See, e.g., Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556, 568 , 3 S.Ct. 396 , 27 L.Ed. 1030 (1883) (holding federal government could not prosecute an American Indian who, on Indian territory, had murdered another member of his tribe, as federal statute excluded such crime from federal criminal jurisdiction in favor of allowing the Indians to engage in self-government, i.e., “the regulation by themselves of their own domestic affairs, the maintenance of order and peace among their own members by the administration of their own laws and customs”); See also United States v. Kostadinov, 734 F.2d 905, 913 (2…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Bryan v. State
(4×)
See also United States v. Young Bros., Inc., 728 F.2d 682, 690 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 881 , 105 S.Ct. 246 , 83 L.Ed.2d 184 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. All Star Industries, Midco Pipe & Tube Co., Richard A. Brazzale, Mannesmann International Alloys, Inc. (Mia)
(2×)
See also United States v. Young Brothers, Inc., 728 F.2d 682, 687 (5th Cir.) ("In order to prove that appellant actually intended to enter into the bidrigging conspiracy, the government was required to show that appellant knowingly joined or participated in the conspiracy.”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 881 , 105 S.Ct. 246 , 83 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984); United States v. Brown, 936 F.2d 1042, 1045-46 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that district court did not err in “holding that it was unnecessary to instruct the jury that intent to produce anticompetitive effects is an element of the offense of which [defen…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
U.S. v. All Star Industries
See also United States v. Young Brothers, Inc., 728 F.2d 682, 687 (5th Cir.) ("In order to prove that appellant actually intended to enter into the bidrigging conspiracy, the government was required to show that appellant knowingly joined or participated in the conspiracy."), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 881 , 105 S. Ct. 246 (1984); United States v. Brown, 936 F.2d 1042, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that district court did not err in "holding that it was unnecessary to instruct the jury that intent to produce anticompetitive effects is an element of the offense of which [defendants] were convict…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. LBS Bank-New York, Inc.
(2×)
See e.g., United States v. Young Brothers, Inc., 728 F.2d 682, 688 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 881 , 105 S.Ct. 246 , 83 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984); United States v. American Stevedores, Inc., 310 F.2d 47, 48-49 (2nd Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 969 , 83 S.Ct. 552 , 9 L.Ed.2d 539 . (1963); Magnolia Motor & Logging Co. v United States, 264 F.2d 950, 953 (9th Cir.1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 815 , 80 S.Ct. 54 , 4 L.Ed.2d 61 (1959); United States v. General Motors, 121 F.2d 376, 411 (7th Cir.1941), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 618 , 62 S.Ct. 105 , 86 L.Ed. 497 (1941) ("In other words, we believ…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Morris J. Miller, United States of America v. Arnold L. Ross
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Young Bros., Inc., 728 F.2d 682, 690 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 881 , 105 S.Ct. 246 , 83 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 661 F.2d 1145, 1158 (7th Cir.1981), aff'd on other grounds, sub. nom Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248 , 103 S.Ct. 608 , 74 L.Ed.2d 430 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kenneth Herbert Linn, A/K/A Dennis Kenneth Long
(2×)
See United States v. Miller, 771 F.2d 1219, 1237 (9th Cir.1985); see also United States v. Young Bros., Inc., 728 F.2d 682, 694 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 881 , 105 S.Ct. 246 , 83 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mason
(2×)
See e.g., United States v. Young Bros., Inc., 728 F.2d 682, 693 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 881 , 105 S.Ct. 246 , 83 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984); United States v. Kegler, 724 F.2d 190, 194 (D.C.Cir.1983); United States v. Janoe, 720 F.2d 1156, 1160 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1036 , 104 S.Ct. 1310 , 79 L.Ed.2d 707 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Dale Irving Mason, United States of America v. Dennis John Napieralski, United States of America v. John H. Borton, United States of America v. Nancy Lee Mason
(2×)
See e.g., United States v. Young Bros., Inc., 728 F.2d 682, 693 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 881 , 105 S.Ct. 246 , 83 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984); United States v. Kegler, 724 F.2d 190, 194 (D.C.Cir.1983); United States v. Janoe, 720 F.2d 1156, 1160 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1036 , 104 S.Ct. 1310 , 79 L.Ed.2d 707 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kenneth Herbert Linn, A/K/A Dennis Kenneth Long
See United States v. Miller, 771 F.2d 1219, 1237 (9th Cir.1985); see also United States v. Young Bros., Inc., 728 F.2d 682, 694 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 881 , 105 S.Ct. *742 246, 83 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Dynalectric Company Paxson Electric Company G.W. Walther Ewalt Wesley C. Paxson, Sr.
(2×)
See also United States v. Young Bros., Inc., 728 F.2d 682, 689 (5th Cir.) (to withstand sufficiency challenge to mail fraud convictions, “the government was required to show that the mailings (relating to the billing and payment of the $10,001) were ‘in furtherance’ of the bidrigging scheme.”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 881 , 105 S.Ct. 246 , 83 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984). 22 4.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Myron R. Ruggles
See, e.g., United States v. Young Brothers, Inc., 728 F.2d 682 , 689 n.7 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 105 S. Ct. 246 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Armon
v.
Jones
v.
Jones
No. 83-6793.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 9, 1984.
Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (2)
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.