McGovern v. Town of Yorktown (1992)

However, as the Powell Court stated, "[t]his advice is admirably informative, but we decline to declare its precise formulation necessary to Miranda's requirements." Id. [5] See United States v. Frankson, 83 F.3d 79, 82 (4th Cir.1996). ("Given the common sense understanding that an unqualified statement lacks qualifications, all that police officers need do is convey the general rights enumerated in Miranda . "); U.S. v. Caldwell, 954 F.2d 496, 502 (8th Cir.1992), cert. deni…

See, e.g., Burd v. Walters (In re Walters), 868 F.2d 665, 670 (4th Cir.1989) (“[N]o authority is offered to support the proposition that emotional distress is an appropriate item of damages for civil contempt, and we know of none”); see also McBride v. Coleman, 955 F.2d 571, 577 (8th Cir.1992) (“The problems of proof, assessment, and appropriate compensation attendant to awarding damages for emotional distress are troublesome enough in the ordinary tort case, and should not …

See Spear v. Town of West Hartford, 771 F.Supp. 521, 530 (D.Conn.1991) (“absent unusual circumstances, the court would abuse its discretion were it to retain jurisdiction of the pendant state law claims on the basis of a federal question claim already disposed of’), aff'd, 954 F.2d 63 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 819 , 113 S.Ct. 66 , 121 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992).

See Green v. Industrial Helicopters, Inc. 593 So.2d 634 (La.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 819 , 113 S.Ct. 65 , 121 L.Ed.2d 32 (1992); Milstead, 676 So.2d 89 .

See Spear v. Town of West Hartford, 954 F.2d 63, 68 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 819 , 113 S.Ct. 66 , 121 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992); Julian v. New York City Transit Auth., 857 F.Supp. 242, 252 (E.D.N.Y.1994), aff'd, 52 F.3d 312 (2d Cir.1995) (requiring “‘specific facts suggesting that there was mutual understanding among the conspirators to take actions directed toward an unconstitutional end’ ” in order to establish a conspiracy under § 1983) (quoting Duvall v. Sharp, 905 F.2d…

See Klagiss v. State, 585 N.E.2d 674, 683 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 819 , 113 S.Ct. 66 , 121 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992).

Coleman v. Espy, 986 F.2d 1184, 1192 (8th Cir.) (motion for contempt seeking compensatory damages for violation of injunction barred by FTCA), cert. denied sub nom., Dye v. Espy, 510 U.S. 913 , 114 S.Ct. 301 , 126 L.Ed.2d 249 (1993); see also McBride v. Coleman, 955 F.2d 571, 576 (8th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., McBride v. Madigan, 506 U.S. 819 , 113 S.Ct. 65 , 121 L.Ed.2d 32 (1992); Armstrong v. Executive Office of President, 821 F.Supp. 761, 773 (D.D.C.), rev'd on other …

See Spear v. West Hartford, 954 F.2d 63 , 68 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 819 , 113 S.Ct. 66 , 121 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992) (“[t]o state a civil rights claim under § 1983, a Complaint must contain specific allegations of facts which indicate a deprivation of constitutional rights; allegations which are nothing more than broad, simple and conclusory statements are insufficient to state a claim under § 1983.”).

See United States v. Udey, 748 F.2d 1231 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1017 , 105 S.Ct. 3477 , 87 L.Ed.2d 613 (1985) and United States v. Caldwell, 954 F.2d 496, 500 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 819 , 113 S.Ct. 65 , 121 L.Ed.2d 32 (1992). 3 In the present case, defense counsel moved for the exclusion of the two statements during a motion in limine hearing.