green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
12.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1998 ·
…one panel of this court is not bound by dicta in a previously published panel opinion
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
United States v. Richard Ray Lacey
But see United States v. Tucker, 28 F.3d 1420, 1422-27 (6th Cir. 1994) (rejecting outrageous governmental conduct defense), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 1426 , 131 L.Ed.2d 308 (1995). 7 .
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
ROBERT FRANK McALPINE ARCH., INC. v. Heilpern
(2×)
one panel of this court is not bound by dicta in a previously published panel opinion
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Pedro-Vidal
(2×)
See Igartua De La Rosa v. United States , 32 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 1994), cert.denied 514 U.S. 1049 , 115 S.Ct. 1426 , 131 L.Ed.2d 308 (1995) ; Igartua De La Rosa v. United States , 229 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2000) ; Igartua De La Rosa v. United States , 386 F.3d 313 (1st Cir. 2004), reh'g granted, judgment vacated , 404 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (order granting panel rehearing), Igartua de la Rosa v. United States , 407 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2005), on reh'g en banc sub nom , Igartua-De La Rosa v. United States , 417 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2005) reh'g en banc .; Igartua De La Rosa v. United States , 626 F.3d 592 (…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Shaw
(2×)
See, United States v. Tucker, 28 F.3d 1420, 1422-28 (6th Cir.1994), ce rt. denied, 514 U.S. 1049 , 115 S.Ct. 1426 , 131 L.Ed.2d 308 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Igartua De La Rosa v. United States
(2×)
See Gregorio Igartua de la Rosa v. United States, 32 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.1994), cert. den. 514 U.S. 1049 , 115 S.Ct. 1426 , 131 L.Ed.2d 308 (1995) ("Igartua I ”), and Igartua de la Rosa v. United States, 229 F.3d 80 (1st Cir.2000) ("Igartua II ”). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Igartua-de-La-Rosa v. United States
(2×)
See Igartua v. United States, 842 F.Supp. 607 (D.P.R.1994), aff 'd, 32 F.3d 8, 9 (1st Cir.1994), (Igartua I), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1049 , 115 S.Ct. 1426 , 131 L.Ed.2d 308 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Igartua De La Rosa v. United States
(2×)
See Igartua de la Rosa v. United States, 842 F.Supp. 607 (D.Puerto Rico), aff'd, 32 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1049 , 115 S.Ct. 1426 , 131 L.Ed.2d 308 (1995). 3 .In view that the Court is considering the Defendant’s tendered reply the Court is hereby GRANTING Defendant’s Motion to File Reply Briefs (docket No. 10).
discussed
Cited "see"
Adams v. Clinton
(2×)
See De La Rosa v. United States, 32 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.1994) (per curiam), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1049 , 115 S.Ct. 1426 , 131 L.Ed.2d 308 (1995); Attorney General of Territory of Guam v. United States, 738 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1209 , 105 S.Ct. 1174 , 84 L.Ed.2d 323 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Houston
(2×)
See United States v. Tucker, 28 F.3d 1420, 1424-26 (6th Cir.1994), cert, denied, -U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1426 , 131 L.Ed.2d 308 (1995) (stating that "there is no authority in [the Sixth] [C]ircuit which holds that the government’s conduct ... can bar prosecution of an otherwise predisposed defendant under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment”); United States v. Santana, 6 F.3d 1, 3-4 (1st Cir.1993) (stating that the outrageous government conduct doctrine "is the deathbed child of objective entrapment, a doctrine long since discarded in the federal courts”). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Morrison
An accused’s defensive invocation of this doctrine implicates and protects constitutional rights—to a jury trial, to present a defense, to due process and to not be placed twice in jeopardy, among others—whereas the People’s affirmative use is for matters of expediency and economy and lacks a constitutional imperative (see State v Ingenito, 87 NJ 204, 209, 432 A2d 912, 915 [1981]; see also Ashe v Swenson, 397 US 436 at 445-446 ). * A California intermediate appellate court that confronted this identical issue over 20 years ago similarly concluded that this strategic use of collateral e…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
MacHaria v. United States
See, e.g., Igartua De La Rosa v. United States, 32 F.3d 8 , 10 n. 1 (1st Cir.1994) cert. denied, 514 U.S. *30 1049, 115 S.Ct. 1426 , 131 L.Ed.2d 308 (1995) (“Articles 1 through 27 of the Covenant were not self-executing, and could not therefore give rise to privately enforceable rights under United States law”.); Ralk v. Lincoln County, 81 F.Supp.2d 1372, 1380 (S.D.Ga.2000) (neither legislative nor executive branch intended ICCPR to be self-executing and no private right of action was created); White v. Paulsen, 997 F.Supp. 1380, 1387 (E.D.Wash.1998) (ICCPR not self-executing treaty that g…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ralk v. Lincoln County, Ga.
(2×)
See e.g., Igartua De La Rosa v. United States, 32 F.3d 8 , 10 n. 1 (1st Cir.) cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1049 , 115 S.Ct. 1426 , 131 L.Ed.2d 308 (1995); White v. Paulsen, 997 F.Supp. 1380, 1387 (E.D.Wash.1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hercules Inc.
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 94-818.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 3, 1995.
Consideration, Took.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: First Circuit (4) · Supreme Court of Alabama (2)
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari granted.
Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.