green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.4 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Talley v. Derwinski
But see U.S. v. Perdue Farms, 680 F.2d 277, 280 (2d Cir.1982) (“[Bjecause the chosen words are not in all instances a reliable indicator of Congress’ intent, [a court] may look to the legislative history of the enactment to determine whether literal application of the statute would ‘pervert its manifest purpose.’ ”) (quoting In Re Adamo, 619 F.2d 216 , 222 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 125 , 66 L.Ed.2d 52 (1980)).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Geltzer v. Mooney (In Re MacMenamin's Grill Ltd.)
statute should not be applied strictly in accord with its literal meaning where to do so would pervert its manifest purpose.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Roy
although the literal meaning of the words chosen by congress is respected, we no longer follow a rigid, semantic approach to statutory construction
discussed
Cited "see"
Cooksey v. State
(2×)
See United States v. Alsobrook, 620 F.2d 139, 142 (6th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 124 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980); United States v. Pavloski, 574 F.2d 933, 936 (7th Cir.1978); United States v. Starks, 515 F.2d 112, 116-17 (3d Cir.1975); State v. Lomagro, 113 Wis.2d 582 , 335 N.W.2d 583 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Neblock
(2×)
See United States v. Alsobrook, 620 F.2d 139, 142 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 124 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980); 1 C.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Joe S. Duncan and Michael M. Downing
(2×)
See United States v. Alsobrook, 620 F.2d 139, 142 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 124 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980); 1 C.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Emile Mitchell Robin
(2×)
See United States v. Alsobrook, 620 F.2d 139 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 124 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980) (consolidation in one count of six trips in interstate commerce in violation of Travel Act proper).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Nicholas Anthony Moccia
(2×)
See United States v. Sinn, 622 F.2d 415, 416 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 124 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Pittman
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Bulgier, 618 F.2d 472, 478 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 125 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980); United States v. An drews, 618 F.2d 646, 654 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 824 , 101 S.Ct. 84 , 66 L.Ed.2d 26 (1980); United States v. Ford, 525 F.2d 1308, 1312-13 (10th Cir. 1975); United States v. Issod, [ 508 F.2d 990, 993 (7th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 916 , 95 S.Ct. 1578 , 43 L.Ed.2d 783 (1975) ]; see also United States v. Emery, 541 F.2d 887, 890 (1st Cir.1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Carter
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Bulgier, 618 F.2d 472, 478 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 125 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980); United States v. Andrews, 618 F.2d 646, 654 (10th Cir.), cert denied, 449 U.S. 824 , 101 S.Ct. 84 , 66 L.Ed.2d 26 (1980); United States v. Ford, 525 F.2d 1308, 1312-13 (10th Cir. 1975); United States v. Issod, [ 508 F.2d 990, 993 (7th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 916 , 95 S.Ct. 1578 , 43 L.Ed.2d 783 (1975)]; see also United States v. Emery, 541 F.2d 887, 890 (1st Cir.1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Upton
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Alsobrook, 620 F.2d 139, 142-43 (6th Cir.) (inclusion of more than one act of interstate travel in a single count alleging a violation of The Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952 , is not impermissibly duplicitous because each act was part of a continuing course of conduct that represented only a single offense), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 124 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Levine
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Alsobrook, 620 F.2d 139, 143 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 124 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980); United States v. Margi- *1438 otta, 646 F.2d 729, 732-33 (1981); see also United States v. Gambino, 729 F.Supp. 954, 971-72 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (“[a] count of an indictment should only be ruled impermissibly duplicitous when the policy goals underlying the doctrine are offended....”); United States v. Finley, 705 F.Supp. 1272, 1295 (N.D.Ill.1988); United States v. Sugar, 606 F.Supp. 1134, 1146 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (same); United States v. Mott, 603 F.Supp. 1322, 1325…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Braj Nandan Singh
(4×)
See, e.g., United States v. Bulgier, 618 F.2d 472, 478 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 125 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980); United States v. Andrews, 618 F.2d 646, 654 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 824 , 101 S.Ct. 84 , 66 L.Ed.2d 26 (1980); United States v. Ford, 525 F.2d 1308, 1312-13 (10th Cir.1975); United States v. Issod, supra, 508 F.2d at 993 ; see also United States v. Emery, 541 F.2d 887, 890 (1st Cir.1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Staats v. State
(2×)
See also United States v. Bulgier, 618 F.2d 472 (7th Cir.), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 125 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980); United States v. McDaniel, 574 F.2d 1224 (5th Cir.1978), cert, denied, 441 U.S. 952 , 99 S.Ct. 2181 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1057 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Castellano
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Also-brook, 620 F.2d 139, 142-43 (6th Cir.) (several violations of Travel Act “that occurred within a short period of time and that involved the same defendant” not duplicitous), ce rt. denied, 449 U.S. 843 , 101 S.Ct. 124 , 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980).
Sinn
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 79-2053.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1980.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: D. Connecticut (1) · S.D. New York (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.