green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
12.5 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2012–2019 · 2 courts ·
…the reply brief is not the appropriate vehicle for presenting new arguments or legal theories to the court.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jordan v. Bartow
the reply brief is not the appropriate vehicle for presenting new arguments or legal theories to the court.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gray v. United States Steel Corp.
the reply brief is not the appropriate vehicle for presenting new arguments or legal theories to the court.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Jackson
e can find no error in the district court's conclusion that there was no proven speedy trial violation, taking into account all the barker factors, despite the extraordinary delay here involved.
discussed
Cited "see"
City of Rocky River v. Glodick, Unpublished Decision (10-25-2007)
See United *Page 5 States v. Smith (C.A.6, 1996), 94 F.3d 204 , 208 , certiorari denied (1997), 519 U.S. 1133 ; United States v. Clark (C.A. 11, 1996), 83 F.3d 1350 , 1352 . {¶ 8} It is well-established that the Ohio speedy trial statute constitutes a rational effort to enforce the constitutional right to a public speedy trial of an accused charged with the commission of a felony or misdemeanor and shall be strictly enforced by the courts of this state.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Browand, Unpublished Decision (8-27-2007)
See United States v. Smith (C.A. 6, 1996), 94 F.3d 204 , 208 , certiorari denied (1997), 519 U.S. 1133 , 117 S. Ct. 997 , 136 L.Ed. 2d 877 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Baumgartner, Unpublished Decision (7-23-2004)
See United States v. Smith (C.A. 6, 1996), 94 F.3d 204 , 208 , certiorari denied (1997), 519 U.S. 1133 ; United States v. Clark (C.A. 11, 1996), 83 F.3d 1350 , 1352 . {¶ 15} R.C. 2945.71 provides the following speedy trial time limit: {¶ 16} "(B) Subject to division (D) of this section, a person against whom a charge of misdemeanor, other than a minor misdemeanor, is pending in a court of record, shall be brought to trial as follows: {¶ 17} "* * * {¶ 18} "(2) Within ninety days after the person's arrest or the service of summons, if the offense charged is a misdemeanor of the first or seco…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Frank Dickerson, A.K.A. Lane, A.K.A. Frank Dixon
See United States v. Martinez, 83 F.3d 371 , 377 n. 6 (11th Cir.1996), ce rt. denied, 519 U.S. 1133 , 117 S.Ct. 998 , 136 L.Ed.2d 877 (1997); United States v. Oakley, 744 F.2d 1553, 1556 (11th Cir.1984). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dickerson
See United States v. Martinez, 83 F.3d 371 , 377 n. 6 (11th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1133 , 117 S.Ct. 998 , 136 L.Ed.2d 877 (1997); United States v. Oakley, 744 F.2d 1553, 1556 (11th Cir.1984). 2 The following exchange took place between defense counsel and Williams: Q: By the way, before you came in and testified here yesterday and today, did you spend time with Agent Skrak going through all of these reports?
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dickerson
See United States v. Martinez, 83 F.3d 371 , 377 n.6 (11th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1133 , 117 S. Ct. 998 (1997); United States v. Oakley, 744 F.2d 1553, 1556 (11th Cir. 1984). 2 The following exchange took place between defense counsel and Williams: Q: By the way, before you came in and testified here yesterday and today, did you spend time with Agent Skrak going through all of these reports?
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jerry Preston Thomas, Jr.
See United States v. Smith, 94 F.3d 204, 208 (6th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1133 , 117 S.Ct. 997 , 136 L.Ed.2d 877 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Joe Howard McClain v. John Deuth
See United States v. Feinberg, 89 F.3d 333, 340 (7th Cir.1996) ("Any issues or arguments of which the appellant may wish to avail himself are forfeited unless proffered in the appellate brief."), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1133 , 117 S.Ct. 997 , 136 L.Ed.2d 876 (1997); Doherty v. City of Chicago, 75 F.3d 318, 324 (7th Cir.1996) ( Rule 28 "requires that an appellant present in its brief the issues it desires to litigate.").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
City of Akron v. Cody, Unpublished Decision (9-6-2000)
State v. Thomas (Aug. 4, 1999), Lorain App. No. 98CA007058, unreported at 4; see, also, United States v. Smith (C.A.6, 1996), 94 F.3d 204 , 208 , certiorari denied (1997), 519 U.S. 1133 , 136 L.Ed.2d 877 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Thomas, Unpublished Decision (8-4-1999)
See, also, United States v. Smith (C.A.6, 1996), 94 F.3d 204 , 208 , certiorari denied (1997), 519 U.S. 1133 , 136 L.Ed.2d 877 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gregrich, Unpublished Decision (3-24-1999)
See, also, United States v. Smith (C.A. 6, 1996), 94 F.3d 204 , 208 , certiorari denied (1997), 519 U.S. 1133 , 136 L.Ed.2d 877 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Golden v. United States
June 10,1998); see also United States v. Feinberg, 89 F.3d 333, 340-41 (7th Cir.1996) (“The reply brief is not the appropriate vehicle for presenting new arguments or legal theories to the court.”), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1133 , 117 S.Ct. 997 , 136 L.Ed.2d 876 (1997); Wil son v. Giesen, 956 F.2d 738, 741 (7th Cir.1992) (finding that an argument was waived because “plaintiff failed to raise it until his reply brief, leaving the defendants no chance to respond”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Salter
v.
Richardson, Commissioner of Internal Revenue
v.
Richardson, Commissioner of Internal Revenue
No. 96-7230.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 18, 1997.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.