Perez v. Rodriguez de Quiñonez (1979)

See Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir.1983) ("[w]hen a physician's failure to diagnose, treat, or warn a patient results in the development of a more serious medical problem than that which previously existed, identification of both the injury and its cause may be more difficult for a patient than if affirmative conduct by a doctor inflicts a new injury"); Greenberg v. McCabe, 453 F.Supp. 765, 772 (E.D.Pa.1978), aff'd without op., 594 F.2d 854 (3d Cir.…

Cf. Rodriguez de Quinonez v. Perez, 596 F.2d 486, 487 (1st Cir.1979) (directorship in a state bank which did not pay plaintiff a salary was not a property interest within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979) (“Rodriguez ”).

See also Detroit Coil Co. v. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers Lodge # 82, 594 F. 2d 575, 580-581 (6th Cir.1979), cert. den. 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 79 , 62 L.Ed.2d 52 (1979); cf. Benjamin F. Shaw Co. v. Cincinnati Gas & Elect.

See United States v. Turkish, 623 F.2d 769, 771 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077 , 101 S.Ct. 856 , 66 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981); United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330, 1341 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979) (“[a] charge of conspiracy is sufficient if it follows the statutory language and contains an adequate statement of an overt act to effectuate the object of the conspiracy, and the requisite overt act need not be criminal in…

United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971, 1032 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (emphasis supplied), ce rt. denied, 457 U.S. 1136 , 102 S.Ct. 2965 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1354 (1982); see United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330 , 1342 n. 14 (10th Cir.) (defendant could be charged with telephone facilitation if underlying distribution was by either himself or third party), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979).

See United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330, 1341 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979). .

See United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330, 1341 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979).

See, e.g., Rodriguez de Quihonez v. Perez, 596 F.2d 486, 488-89 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979); Beitzell v. Jeffrey, 643 F.2d 870, 878 (1st Cir.1981); Huntley v. Community School Bd., 543 F.2d 979, 984-86 (2nd Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 929 , 97 S.Ct. 1547 , 51 L.Ed.2d 773 (1977); McKnight v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp.

See United States v. Mancillas, supra, 580 F.2d at 1307 ; accord, United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330, 1337 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979); cf. United States v. Martin, 599 F.2d 880, 888-89 (9th Cir.) (person who attempts to purchase small amount of drug for personal use from a member of a conspiracy to sell that drug cannot be convicted by that act alone of facilitation of a conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 843 (b)), cert. denie…

Grace & Co. v. Rubber Workers, 461 U.S. 757, 764 (1983); see Morgan Servs., Inc. v. Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, Local 323, 724 F.2d 1217, 1221 (6th Cir.1984) ("It is well established that the power to construe ambiguous contract provisions lies with the arbitrator...."). 10 In construing a labor agreement, the arbitrator may also look for guidance to "the 'practices of the shop' that have developed between the parties in the day-to-day administration of t…

See also United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330, 1343 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979).

See United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330 (10th Cir.) cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 (1979) (tape may be excluded if unintelligible portions are so significant that whole recording is rendered untrustworthy). 7 We find no abuse of discretion in the admission of evidence of Hemingway's prior drug conviction and his aborted attempt to sell cocaine to an undercover officer.

See also Iowa Beef Processors v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters, 597 F.2d 1138 , 1144 (8th Cir.) (examined language, external circumstances, and policy considerations to determine whether the right had been waived), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 79 , 62 L.Ed.2d 52 (1979). 23 Thus, we must next decide whether the no-strike clause is "ambiguous" in the sense that it is reasonably susceptible of the meaning proposed by Morrell, namely, that the Unions, in clear and unmistaka…

See also Iowa Beef Processors v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters, 597 F.2d 1138 , 1144 (8th Cir.) (examined language, external circumstances, and policy considerations to determine whether the right had been waived), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 79 , 62 L.Ed.2d 52 (1979).

See, e.g., United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330, 1343 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979).

See Model Penal Code Sec. 5.03 comment (Official Draft and Revised Comments 1985). 6 As this court has indicated in United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330, 1340 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979), 7 Where large quantities of narcotics are being distributed, each major buyer may be presumed to know that he is part of a wide-ranging venture, the success of which depends on performance by others whose identity he may not even know. 8 S…

See also, Rodriguez de Quinonez v. Perez, 596 F.2d 486 (1st Cir.) cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979) (pre-termination hearing not required but post-termination hearing necessary in case involving liberty interest); White v. Thomas, 660 F.2d 680 (5th Cir.1981) cert. denied 455 U.S. 1027 , 102 S.Ct. 1731 , 72 L.Ed.2d 148 (1982) (post-termination hearing proper remedy for employee deprived of liberty interest during termination); In re Selcraig, 70…

See *1297 United States v. Roberts, 618 F.2d 530, 535 (9th Cir.1980), United States v. Brighton Bldg. & Maintenance Co., 598 F.2d 1101 , 1109 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 80 , 62 L.Ed.2d 52 (1979).

See, e.g., Rodriguez de Quinonez v. Perez, 596 F.2d 486, 490 (1st Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979) ("It is true that, strictly read, the statute [under which the plaintiff was removed from office] does not require an official determination or charge of dishonesty, but only a finding that there is sufficient 'evidence' of dishonesty to warrant invoking the statute.

See, e.g., Rodriguez de Quinonez v. Perez, 596 F.2d 486, 490 (1st Cir.1979), ce rt. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979) (“It is true that, strictly read, the statute [under which the plaintiff was removed from office] does not require an official determination or charge of dishonesty, but only a finding that there is sufficient ‘evidence’ of dishonesty to warrant invoking the statute.

It is sufficient if a defendant’s use of a telephone to facilitate the possession or distribution of controlled substances facilitates either his own or another person’s possession or distribution.’ United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971, 1032 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (emphasis supplied), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1136 [ 102 S.Ct. 2965 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1354 ] (1982); see United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330 , 1342 n. 14 (10th Cir.) (defendant could be charged with telephone facili…

See also United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330, 1335 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979).

See also United States v. Brighton Building, 598 F.2d 1101 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 79 , 62 L.Ed.2d 52 (1979).

See also United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330, 1342-43 (10th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Brown v. United States, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979).

Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(A); see also United States v. Brighton Building & Maintenance Co., 598 F.2d 1101, 1108 (7th Cir.1979), ce rt. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 79 , 62 L.Ed.2d 52 .

Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 provides that a pretrial order “when entered controls the subsequent course of the action, unless modified at trial to prevent injustice.” The trial judge has “broad discretion in determining whether or not a pretrial order should be modified or amended.” United States v. Texas, 680 F.2d 356, 370 (5th Cir.1982); accord Del Rio Distributing, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 589 F.2d 176, 178 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 80 , 62 L.Ed.2d 52 (1…

See United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330, 1335 (10th Cir. 1979) (“[F]amiliarity with another’s voice may be acquired either before or after the particular speaking which is the subject of the identification.”) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 901(b)(5)), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979).

See, e. g., United States v. Brighton Building Maintenance Co., 598 F.2d 1101 , 1108 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 80 , 62 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969); United States v. Mosley, 555 F.2d 191, 193 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 851 , 98 S.Ct. 163 , 54 L.Ed.2d 120 (1977); National Land & Investment Co. v. Specter, 428 F.2d 91, 97 (3d Cir. 1970); Gollaher v. United States, 419 F.2d 520, 523 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 960 , 90 S.Ct. 434 , 24 L.Ed.2d 424 (19…

See Rodriguez de Quinonez v. Perez, 596 F.2d 486 [1st Cir.1978], cert. den., 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 [1979]; Burkhart v. Randles, 764 F.2d 1196, 1201 [6th Cir.1985]; McGhee v. Draper, supra . (4) The Iowa Supreme Court, relying on Fifth Circuit jurisprudence in Rosenstein, supra note 3 , holds that a discharged nontenured public employee must request a name-clearing hearing to establish a § 1983 liberty interest claim.

See United States v. Brighton Building & Maintenance Co., 598 F.2d 1101, 1105 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 840[, 100 S.Ct. 79 , 80, 62 L.Ed.2d 52 ] (1979) (criminal antitrust prosecution: “Defendants [are] not entitled to an instruction which [includes] the ... phrase [that the defendant knowingly did an act which the law forbids, purposely intending to violate the law]. ‘A requirement of proof not only of this knowledge of likely effects, but also of a conscious…

“Because it is provided simply to cleanse the reputation of the claimant, the hearing need not take place prior to his termination or to the publication of related information adverse to his interests.” Campbell v. Pierce County, Georgia, at 1345; see also Rodriguez de Quinonez v. Perez, 596 F.2d 486 (1st Cir.) cert, denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979) (pre-termination hearing not required but post-termination hearing necessary in case involving libert…

See Greenberg v. McCabe, 453 F.Supp. 765, 772 (1978), affirmed, 594 F.2d 854 (3d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 79 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979).

Because an arbitrator “does not sit to dispense his own brand of industrial justice” and “is confined to interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement,” id. at 597 , 80 S.Ct. at 1361 , vacatur is required where an arbitrator “exceed[s] the limits of his contractual authority” or where the award “is not derived in some rational way” from the CBA Local 814, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Sotheby’s, Inc., 665 F.Supp. 1089, 1092 (S.D.N.Y.1987)(quoting America…

See also, Rodriguez de Quinonez v. Perez, 596 F.2d 486 (1st Cir.) cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979) (pretermination hearing not required but post-termination hearing necessary in case involving liberty interest); White v. Thomas, 660 F.2d 680 (5th Cir.1981) ce rt. denied 455 U.S. 1027 , 102 S.Ct. 1731 , 72 L.Ed.2d 148 (1982) (post-termination hearing proper remedy for employee deprived of liberty interest during termination); In re Selcraig, 70…

See Fed.R.Evid. 901(b)(5); see also United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330, 1335 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979); United States v. Bonanno, 487 F.2d 654, 659 (2d Cir.1973); United States v. Whitaker, 372 F.Supp. 154, 165 (M.D.Pa.), aff'd, 503 F.2d 1400 (3d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1113 , 95 S.Ct. 789 , 42 L.Ed.2d 810 (1975).

See Del Rio Distrib., Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 589 F.2d 176 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 80 , 62 L.Ed.2d 52 (1979) (affirmed trial court’s denial of a new trial based on a change in the applicable legal standard during the trial due to a Supreme Court decision.

Center, 142 Misc.2d 292, 296 [ 537 N.Y.S.2d 446, 448-449 ]; Hoopes v. Hammargren, 102 Nev. 425 , 725 P.2d 238 ; Wall v. Noble, 705 S.W.2d 727 [Tex.App.]; Adams, Sex with Patients: Is it Malpractice?, 23 Trial 58 [June 1987]; see also, Greenberg v. McCabe, 453 F.Supp. 765 , affd. [3 Cir.] 594 F.2d 854 , cert. denied 444 U.S. 840 [ 100 S.Ct. 78 , 79, 62 L.Ed.2d 51 ] * * *).” Stevenson v. Goomar (1989), 148 A.D.2d 217, 226 , 544 N.Y.S.2d 690, 696 , Levine, J., dissenting.

Such motions should be granted, however, “only if the targeted allegations are clearly not relevant to the charge and are inflammatory and prejudicial.” United States v. Chaverra-Cardona, 667 F.Supp. *1519 609, 611 (N.D.Ill.1987) (emphasis added) (citing 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d § 127, at 425-27 (1982)); see also United States v. Brighton Bldg. & Maintenance Co., 435 F.Supp. 222, 230-31 (N.D.Ill.1977), aff'd, 598 F.2d 1101 (7th Cir.), cert. denie…

Center, 142 Misc 2d 292, 296 ; Hoopes v Hammargren, 102 Nev 425, 725 P2d 238 ; Wall v Noble, 705 SW2d 727 [Tex]; Adams, Sex with Patients: Is it Malpractice?, 23 Trial 58 [June 1987]; see also, Greenberg v McCabe, 453 F Supp 765 , affd 594 F2d 854, cert denied 444 US 840 ; cf., Roy v Hartogs, 85 Misc 2d 891, 892 ; Atienza v Taub, 194 Cal App 3d 388, 239 Cal Rptr 454).

See, e.g., Detroit Coil Co. v. International Assn. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Lodge 82, 594 F.2d 575 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S. Ct. 79 , 62 L.

See, e.g., Detroit Coil Co. v. International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Lodge #82, 594 F.2d 575 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S. Ct. 79 , 62 L.

See also United States v. Brighton Building & Maintenance Co., 435 F.Supp. 222, 230-31 (N.D.Ill.1977), aff'd, 598 F.2d 1101 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 79 , 62 L.Ed.2d 52 (1979).

See also Centsable Products, Inc. v. Lemelson, 591 F.2d 400, 403 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 79 , 62 L.Ed.2d 52 (1979); Haloro, Inc. v. Owens-Fiberglas Corp., 288 F.2d 148, 149 (D.C.Cir.1961); Continental Can Co. v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., 362 F.2d 123, 127 (7th Cir.19.66); A.E.

See, Greenberg v. McCabe, 453 F.Supp. 765 (E.D.Pa.1978), aff’d. 594 F.2d 854 (3d Cir.1979), cert. den., McCabe v. Greenberg, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 79 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979). 15 .

See Iowa Beef Processors, Inc. v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, 597 F.2d 1138 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 79 , 62 L.Ed.2d 52 ; Fabricut, Inc. v. Tulsa General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 523, 597 F.2d 227 (10th Cir. 1979).

See Rodriguez de Quinonez v. Perez, 596 F.2d 486 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979); Levesque v. State of Maine, 587 F.2d 78 (1st Cir. 1978).

See Centsable Products, Inc. v. Lemelson, 591 F.2d 400 (7th Cir.) cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 , 100 S.Ct. 79 , 62 L.Ed.2d 52 (1979).