green
Positive treatment
Issue: accomplice liability instructionDE ↗
Issue: rico claimNJ ↗
4.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Steckel v. State
See Lovett v. State, 516 A.2d 455 (1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 1898 , 95 L.Ed.2d 504 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Piorkowski
See Lovett v. State, 516 A.2d 455, 464-65 (Del. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1018 , 107 S. Ct. 1898 , 95 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Quintero
See United States v. Grayson, 795 F.2d 278, 290 (3d Cir.1986) (finding that challenged jury instruction did not affect any possible constitutional right, court applied “highly probable” standard of appellate review to assess the question of harmless error), ce rt. denied, 481 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 1899 , 95 L.Ed.2d 505 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Quintero
See United States v. Grayson, 795 F.2d 278, 290 (3d Cir.1986) (finding that challenged jury instruction did not affect any possible constitutional right, court applied "highly probable" standard of appellate review to assess the question of harmless error), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 1899 , 95 L.Ed.2d 505 (1987). 62 We find that the dispute here involves a claim of nonconstitutional error in that it is based solely on a violation of Sec. 2518(8)(a).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Walter Esposito
See United States v. Grayson, 795 F.2d 278 (3d Cir.1986), ce rt. denied, 481 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 1899 , 95 L.Ed.2d 505 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cole
(2×)
See United States v. Andrews, 790 F.2d 803, 806 (10th Cir.1986) (serious illness of appellant constitutes excusable neglect), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 1898 , 95 L.Ed.2d 505 (1987); In re Buckingham Super Markets, Inc., 631 F.2d 763, 766 (D.C.Cir.1980) (“... misunderstanding between counsel and client represented a sufficient foundation for showing of excusable neglect.”).
cited
Cited "see"
McLain v. General Motors Corp.
See Lovett v. State, Del.Supr., 516 A.2d 455, 475 (1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 1898 , 95 L.Ed.2d 504 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Bryan
See Lovett v. State, Del.Supr., 516 A.2d 455, 465 (1986), cert. de *818 nied, Lovett v. Delaware, 481 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 1898 , 95 L.Ed.2d 504 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Theodore Edmonds, in No. 93-1890. United States of America v. Lorenzo Duncan, A/K/A Tariq Lorenzo Duncan, in No. 93-1914. United States of America v. Carlton Love, in No. 93-1920. United States of America v. Cora Love, in No. 93-1947
See, e.g., United States v. Grayson, 795 F.2d 278, 283-84 (3d Cir.1986) (stating that the government must prove that a felony violation of the narcotics law is "part of a continuing series of violations"), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 , 107 S.Ct. 927 , 93 L.Ed.2d 978 , and cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 1899 , 95 L.Ed.2d 505 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Edmonds
See, e.g., United States v. Grayson, 795 F.2d 278, 283-84 (3d Cir.1986) (stating that the government must prove that a felony violation of the narcotics law is “part of a continuing series of violations”), cer t. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 , 107 S.Ct. 927 , 93 L.Ed.2d 978 , and cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 1899 , 95 L.Ed.2d 505 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. John Marrone, A/K/A Johnny Moose, John Marrone, United States of America v. Michael Paris
In a series of cases, albeit in another context, we have noted that Congress did not intend “RICO to be a substitute for the predicate offense,” but instead “intended to create separate offenses for the predicate acts and the substantive RICO charge.” United States v. Esposito, 912 F.2d 60, 63-64 (3d Cir.1990), cert. dismissed, 498 U.S. 1075 , 111 S.Ct. 806 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1032 (1991); see also United States v. Grayson, 795 F.2d 278, 283 (3d Cir.1986) (“Congress, in enacting RICO, sought to allow the separate prosecution and punishment of predicate offenses and a subsequent RICO offens…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ricou Deshaw
See e.g., United States v. Grayson, 795 F.2d 278 (3d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 , 107 S.Ct. 927 , 93 L.Ed.2d 978 , 481 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 1899 , 95 L.Ed.2d 505 (1987); United States v. Schell, 775 F.2d 559 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1098 , 106 S.Ct. 1498 , 89 L.Ed.2d 898 (1986) 19 Cf. Jeffers v. United States, 432 U.S. 137 , 97 S.Ct. 2207 , 53 L.Ed.2d 168 (1977) (a conspiracy to distribute drugs in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 is a lesser included offense to conducting a CCE in violation of § 848) 20 Other circuits have also concluded that double jeopardy considera…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
U.S. v. Deshaw
See e.g., United States v. Grayson, 795 F.2d 278 (3d Cir.1986), ce rt. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 , 107 S.Ct. 927 , 93 L.Ed.2d 978 , 481 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 1899 , 95 L.Ed.2d 505 (1987); United States v. Schell, 775 F.2d 559 (4th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1098 , 106 S.Ct. 1498 , 89 L.Ed.2d 898 (1986). 19 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Garland Arnoldt, United States of America v. Garland Arnoldt, A/K/A Shagg
See, e.g., United States v. Grayson, 795 F.2d 278, 283 (3d Cir.1986) (“successive prosecutions for a RICO offense and its underlying predicate offenses are not inconsistent with the double jeopardy clause”), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 , 107 S.Ct. 927 , 93 L.Ed.2d 978 , 481 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 1899 , 95 L.Ed.2d 505 (1987); accord United States v. Schell, 775 F.2d 559, 568 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1098 , 106 S.Ct. 1498 , 89 L.Ed.2d 898 (1986); United States v. Boldin, 772 F.2d 719, 728-30 (11th Cir.1985), modified on other grounds, 779 F.2d 618 , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Zimmerman v. State
See also Lovett v. State, Del.Supr. 516 A.2d 455, 468 (1986) cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 1898 , 95 L.Ed.2d 504 (1987) (holding that evidence presented at trial clearly justified the trial court’s accomplice liability instruction and did not cause defendant prejudice or unfair surprise, even though details of accomplice liability were not disclosed in bill of particulars).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gabriel Alvarez, Gustavo Holguin, Leovigilda Rivera, Humberto Olivares Castrellon and Oneyda Zambrana
(4×)
See, e.g., United States v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 294 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); United States v. Tenorio-Angel, 756 F.2d 1505, 1508 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Daly, 716 F.2d 1499, 1506 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1075 , 104 S.Ct. 1456 , 79 L.Ed.2d 773 (1984); United States v. Little, 567 F.2d 346, 349 (8th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 969 , 98 S.Ct. 1608 , 56 L.Ed.2d 60 (1978); see also United States v. Andrews, 790 F.2d 803, 810 (10th Cir.1986) (applying waiver where defendant pleaded guilty), cert. denied, 481 U.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Aguilar
Waxner, Moore's Federal Practice p 29.08, at 29-65 (Mar. 1988 rev.); see also United States v. Grayson, 795 F.2d 278, 284 (3d Cir.1986) ("The [CCE] statute requires an agreement in a design or plan as well as concerted activity.") (citing Jeffers, 432 U.S. at 148-49 , 97 S.Ct. at 2214-15 ) (dictum), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 1899 , 95 L.Ed.2d 505 , and sub nom.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Aguilar
Waxner, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 29.08[3], at 29-65 (Mar. 1988 rev.); see also United States v. Grayson, 795 F.2d 278, 284 (3d Cir.1986) ("The [CCE] statute requires an agreement in a design or plan as well as concerted activity.’’) (citing Jef-fers, 432 U.S. at 148-49, 97 S.Ct. at 2214-15) (dictum), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 1899 , 95 L.Ed.2d 505 , and sub nom.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Howell
v.
Dallas County Child Welfare Unit
v.
Dallas County Child Welfare Unit
No. 86-6042.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 20, 1987.
481 U.S. 1018
1987 U.S. LEXIS 1702
Cited by 64 opinions | Published
Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.