Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: Motion to Compel Compliance With Subpoena Directed to Department of Veteran Affairs
See United States v. Nicolapolous, 30 F.3d 381, 383-84 (2d Cir. 1994) (finding that a plaintiff’s failure to disclose evidence was harmless when the evidence was irrelevant (except as to the defendant’s ability to impeach a witness, but the defendant already had sufficient evidence for this purpose)), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1059 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Haggerty v. Williams
See Hill v. Hill, 35 Conn. App. 160, 172 , 644 A.2d 951 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 914 , 648 A.2d 153 , cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1059 , 115 S. Ct. 669 , 130 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Foster v. Foster
See Hill v. Hill, 35 Conn. App. 160, 163 , 644 A.2d 951 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 914 , 648 A.2d 153 , cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1059 , 115 S. Ct. 669 , 130 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Fitzgerald v. State
See United States v. Klinginsmith, 25 F.3d 1507, 1510 (10th Cir.) (“[W]hen the dog ‘alerted,’ there was probable cause to arrest [defendants] ____”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1059 , 115 S.Ct. 669 , 130 L.Ed.2d 602 (1994); United States v. Williams, 726 F.2d 661, 663 (10th Cir.1984) (“[A] drug sniffing dog’s detection of contraband in luggage ‘itself establishes] probable cause, enough for the arrest, more than enough for the stop.’ ” (alteration in original) quoting United States v. Waltzer, 682 F.2d 370, 372 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1210 , 103 S.Ct. 3543 , 77 L.Ed…
discussed
Cited "see"
Wallace v. State
See United States v. Klinginsmith, 25 F.3d 1507, 1510 (10th Cir.) (“When the dog ‘alerted,’ there was probable cause to arrest [defendants] .... ”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1059 , 115 S.Ct. 669 , 130 L.Ed.2d 602 (1994); United States v. Williams, 726 F.2d 661, 663 (10th Cir.1984) (“[A] drug sniffing dog’s detection of contraband in luggage *705 ‘itself establishes probable cause, enough for the arrest, more than chough for the stop.’ ” (alteration in original) quoting United States v. Waltzer, 682 F.2d 370, 372 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1210 , 103 S.Ct. 3543 , 77 L…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Robinson
See United States v. Klinginsmith, 25 F.3d 1507, 1510 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1059 , 115 S.Ct. 669 , 130 L.Ed.2d 602 (1994); see also United States v. Barbee, 968 F.2d 1026, 1030 (10th Cir.1992) (quoting United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982) *973 (“If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.”)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilkes v. State
See United States v. Klinginsmith, 25 F.3d 1507, 1510 (10th Cir.) ("[W]hen the dog `alerted,' there was probable cause to arrest [defendants] ...."), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1059 , 115 S.Ct. 669 , 130 L.Ed.2d 602 (1994); United States v. Williams, 726 F.2d 661, 663 (10th Cir.1984) ("[A] drug sniffing dog's detection of contraband in luggage `itself establish[es] probable cause, enough for the arrest, more than enough for the stop.'" (alteration in original) quoting United States v. Waltzer, 682 F.2d 370, 372 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1210 , 103 S.Ct. 3543 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1392 (1983)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilkes v. State
See United States v. Klinginsmith, 25 F.3d 1507, 1510 (10th Cir.) ("[Wjhen the dog 'alerted,' there was probable cause to arrest [defendants] ....”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1059 , 115 S.Ct. 669 , 130 L.Ed.2d 602 (1994); United States v. Williams, 726 F.2d 661, 663 (10th Cir.1984) ("[A] drug sniffing dog’s detection of contraband in luggage 'itself establish[es] probable cause, enough for the arrest, more than enough for the stop.' ” (alteration in original) quoting United States v. Waltzer, 682 F.2d 370, 372 (2d Cir.1982), ce rt. denied, 463 U.S. 1210 , 103 S.Ct. 3543 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1392 (…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Selness
See, e.g., United States v. Torres, 28 F3d 1463 (7th Cir), cert den 513 US 1059 (1994) (owner who does not file claim in forfeiture proceeding cannot base double jeopardy claim on that proceeding); United States v. Cretacci, 62 F3d 307 (9th Cir), cert den 518 US 1007 (1995) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kentasha Sharrie Holley
The court determined the dog's positive alert to the odor of narcotics from Ms. Holley's luggage provided probable cause for the detectives' subsequent actions. 14 This Circuit has ruled "a drug sniffing dog's detection of contraband in luggage 'itself establish[es] probable cause, enough for the arrest, [and] more than enough for the stop.' " United States v. Williams, 726 F.2d 661, 663 (10th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Waltzer, 682 F.2d 370, 372 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1210 , 103 S.Ct. 3543 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1392 (1983)), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1245 (1984); see also, e.g., Unite…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Pitt-Des Moines, Inc.
See Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 390-91 , 95 S.Ct. 1055, 1063-64 , 43 L.Ed.2d 265 (1975). “[Jjeopardy does not attach until a defendant is ‘put to trial before the trier of the facts, whether the trier be a jury or a judge.’” Id. at 391 , 95 S.Ct. at 1064 ; see also United States v. Torres, 28 F.3d 1463, 1464 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1059 , 115 S.Ct. 669 , 130 L.Ed.2d 603 (1994) (stating that in civil cases jeopardy attaches “when evidence is first presented to the trier of fact in a proceeding seeking to impose a penalty for crime.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lester W. Gilbert v. United States
See also United States v. Vega, 72 F.3d 507, 514 (7th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 2529 (1996) (citing United States v. Torres, 28 F.3d 1463, 1465 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1059 (1994) (A "nonparty" to a forfeiture proceeding is "without risk of a determination of guilt" and thus cannot argue that the forfeiture proceeding put him in "jeopardy.") 3 Gilbert's § 2255 petition also claims that § 924(e)(1) is unconstitutional because it fails to specify a maximum penalty.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ferreira v. Superior Court
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Torres, 28 F.3d 1463, 1465 (7th Cir.1994), cert, denied, 513 U.S. 1059 , 115 S.Ct. 669 , 130 L.Ed.2d 603 (1994); United States v. Walsh, 873 F.Supp. 334, 336-37 (D.Ariz.1994); United States v. Kemmish, 869 F.Supp. 803, 806 (S.D.Cal.1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eick
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 94-793.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 12, 1994.
513 U.S. 1059
Published
C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.