How cited: Spivey v. Thomas · Go Syfert

Spivey v. Thomas (1996)

green · 50 citation events across 8 courts. Showing the 13 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199620112026
green Spivey v. Turpin (2000)
Cited · 11th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Spivey v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 1077 , 116 S.Ct. 784 , 133 L.Ed.2d 734 (1996) (mem.).
mem.
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see, e.g. · 2 citations in this opinion
See, e.g., United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1465-66 (4th Cir.1995) (collecting authorities), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 784 , 133 L.Ed.2d 734 (1996); United States v. Hammond, 17 M.J. 218 , 220 n. 3 (C.M.A.1984) (one of the "common misconceptions about rape is that it is a sexual act rather than a crime of violence."); United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ("UNHCR"), Sexual Violence Against Refugees: Guidelines on Prevention and Response, at 1 (Gene…
Cited · 4th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1468 (4th Cir. 1995) (emphasizing that limiting instructions generally obviate any prejudice), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 784 (1996); United States v. Salva, 745 F.2d 840, 844 (4th Cir. 1984) (same), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 (1985).
same
green Scott v. Dorsey (1998)
Cited · 10th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1464 (4th Cir. 1995)(holding evidence of defendant’s prior violence against his family admissible to explain delay in reporting sexual abuse), -9- cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 784 (1996).
Cited · 10th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1464 (4th Cir.1995)(holding evidence of defendant's prior violence against his family admissible to explain delay in reporting sexual abuse), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 784 (1996).
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460 , 1465-66 & n. 5 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 784 , 133 L.Ed.2d 734 (1996).
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460 , 1465-66 & n. 5 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 784 , 133 L.Ed.2d 734 (1996).
Cited · 4th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1464 (4th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Haney, 914 F.2d 602, 607 (4th Cir.1990)), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 784 (1996). 15 In attempting to introduce Rule 404(b) evidence against Robles, Rubio invokes a "rarely-used variant of Rule 404(b), known as 'reverse 404(b).' " United States v. Stevens, 935 F.2d 1380, 1401-02 (3d Cir.1991) (footnote omitted).
green United States v. Rubio (1996)
Cited · 4th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1464 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Haney, 914 F.2d 602, 607 (4th Cir. 1990)), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 784 (1996).
footnote omitted
green Bernay v. State (1999)
Cited · Okla. Crim. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Scott v. State, 1995 OK CR 14, ¶ 11 , 891 P.2d 1283, 1290 , cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1077 , 116 S.Ct. 784 , 133 L.Ed.2d 735 (1996).
green State v. Bey (1999)
Cited · Ohio · signal: see
See State v. Bryant-Bey (Mar. 10, 1995), Lucas App. No. L-93-184, unreported, 1995 WL 96783 , discretionary appeal denied (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 1411 , 651 N.E.2d 1308 , certiorari denied (1996), 516 U.S. 1077 , 116 S.Ct. 784 , 133 L.Ed.2d 734 .
green Cluster 8862
Cited (see also) · signal: see also
See Eiland v. Westinghouse Corp., 58 F.3d 176 , 180 (5th Cir.1995) (admission or exclusion of expert opinion testimony under Rule 702 will not be disturbed unless “manifestly erroneous”); see also, United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1471 (4th Cir.1995) (refusal to admit scientific evidence reviewed for abuse *1515 of discretion), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 784 , 133 L.Ed.2d 734 (1996).
Cited (see also) · signal: see also
See Eiland v. Westinghouse Corp., 58 F.3d 176 , 180 (5th Cir. 1995)(admission or exclusion of expert opinion testimony under Rule 702 will not be disturbed unless “manifestly erroneous”); see also, United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1471 (4th Cir. 1995)(refusal to admit scientific evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 784 (1996).