United States v. Levi Strauss & Co., 527 U.S. 1001 (1999). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Levi Strauss & Co., 527 U.S. 1001 (1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
30 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Hallum (iowa, 2000-02-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hallum
Iowa · 2000 · confidence medium
Hallum, — U.S. at -, 119 S.Ct. at 2335, 144 L.Ed.2d at 233.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Swoopes
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Swoopes v. Sublett, 527 U.S. 1001 , 119 S.Ct. 2335 , 144 L.Ed.2d 233 (1999) (granting petition for writ of certiorari, vacating judgment, and remanding case to federal court of appeals for reconsideration); Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1011 (9th Cir.1999) (decision on remand finding Swoopes not required to seek review by Arizona Supreme Court to exhaust claims for federal habeas corpus purposes, and remanding case to district court for further proceedings). 2 .
cited Cited "see" Levi Strauss & Co. v. United States
Ct. Intl. Trade · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Levi Strauss & Co., 527 U.S. 1001 , 119 S.Ct. 2335 , 144 L.Ed.2d 233 (1999).
cited Cited "see" Levi Strauss & Company v. United States
Fed. Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See 527 U.S. 1001 , 119 S.Ct. 2335 , 144 L.Ed.2d 233 (1999).
cited Cited "see" Samuel W. Swoopes v. Sam Sublett Grant Woods, Attorney General
9th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Swoopes v. Sublett, - U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 2335 , 144 L.Ed.2d 233 (1999).
cited Cited "see" Jerome White v. Salvador A. Godinez
7th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Godinez v. White, 526 U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 2335 , 144 L.Ed.2d 233 (1999).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State of Iowa v. Mark Daryl Becker (2×)
Iowa · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
However, we also note that “the court is not required to give any particular form of an instruction; rather, the court must merely give instructions that fairly state the law as applied to the facts of the case.” Id. at 838; see also State v. Veal, 564 N.W.2d 797, 812 (Iowa 1997), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Hallum, 585 N.W.2d 249, 253 (Iowa 1998), vacated on other grounds, 527 U.S. 1001 , 119 S. Ct. 1335 , 144 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Levi Strauss & Co.
No. 98-1356.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 14, 1999.
527 U.S. 1001
99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4641
1999 U.S. LEXIS 4038
Cited by 28 opinions  |  Published

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U. S. 380 (1999).