green
Positive treatment
6.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States ex rel. Brooks v. Clifford
But see, Brown v. McNamara, 263 F.Supp. 686, 691 (D.N.J.), aff’d., 387 F.2d 150 (3 Cir. 1967), cert. den. sub nom., Brown v. Clifford, 390 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 1244 , 20 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968), suggesting that such regulations are not required.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Luis Carbone, A/K/A \Luiggi
See Fountain v. United States, 384 F.2d 624, 631 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 1246 , 20 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968); United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d at 440 .
cited
Cited "see"
Golden v. State
See Fountain v. United States, 384 F.2d 624, 631 (5th Cir.1967), cert. denied sub. nom., Marshall v. United States, 390 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 1246 , 20 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Richard Gordon
See Fountain v. United States, 384 F.2d 624, 631 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 1246 , 20 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Frank Diecidue, Larry Neil Miller, Frank Boni, Jr., A/K/A \Mustache Frankie
See Ballantyne v. United States, 237 F.2d 657, 665 (5th Cir. 1956). 77 Where a witness has legitimately invoked the privilege, his direct testimony must be struck only if the defendants' inability to complete their inquiry created a "substantial danger of prejudice by depriving (them) of the ability to test the truth of the witness's direct testimony." Fountain v. United States, 384 F.2d 624, 628 (5th Cir.), Cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 1246 , 20 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Herman Franks, (Two Cases). United States of America v. Max Britton, (Two Cases). United States of America v. Boyce Mitchell
See Fountain v. United States, 384 F.2d 624 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied sub nom., Marshall v. United States, 390 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 1246 , 20 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968); see also United States v. Desist, 384 F.2d 889, 899 (2d Cir. 1967), aff’d, 394 U.S. 244 , 89 S.Ct. 1030 , 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca6 1974
See Fountain v. United States, 384 F.2d 624 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied sub nom., Marshall v. United States, 390 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 1246 , 20 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968). 15 The general rule is that a witness who has testified to incriminating matters on direct examination has waived the privilege as to those matters and may not decline to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds when cross-examined.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Stephens
See Fountain v. United States, 384 F.2d 624 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied sub nom., Marshall v. United States, 390 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 1246 , 20 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca9 1969
(2×)
See Brown v. McNamara, 263 F.Supp. 686, 692-693 (D.N.J.), affirmed 387 F.2d 150 (3d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, Brown v. Clifford, 390 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 1244 , 20 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see"
Craycroft v. Ferrall
(2×)
See Brown v. McNamara, 263 F.Supp. 686, 692-693 (D.N.J.), affirmed 387 F.2d 150 (3d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, Brown v. Clifford, 390 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 1244 , 20 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968).
examined
Cited "see"
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Brown v. McNamara, 387 F.2d 150 , 153 n. 5 (3d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, Brown v. Clifford, 390 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 1244 , 20 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968) (noting, but not ruling upon, the instant contention).
examined
Cited "see"
No. 461
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Brown v. McNamara, 387 F.2d 150 , 153 n. 5 (3d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, Brown v. Clifford, 390 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 1244 , 20 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968) (noting, but not ruling upon, the instant contention).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States ex rel. Caputo v. Sharp
This legislative intent is borne out by the House Armed Services Committee Report, which evinces as its principal concern that of discouraging judicial review at a premature stage of the Selective Service process before the case would be properly ripe for challenge in the courts. 2 Thus, the new law seems merely a statutory restatement of the “existing law” handed down by the federal courts which, indeed, “precludes * * * judicial review” of draft board “classification action” except in two instances, viz.: after registrant has submitted for induction, on a petition for habeas corp…
examined
Cited "see"
Hammond v. Lenfest
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Brown v. McNamara, 387 F.2d 150 , 153 n. 5 (3d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, Brown v. Clifford, 390 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 1244 , 20 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968) (noting, but not ruling upon, the instant contention).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Roncari Industries, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission
Furthermore, it is well recognized “that [t]he purpose of [the procedural requirements of § 8-3 (a)] is fairly and sufficiently to apprise those who may be affected by the proposed action of the nature and character of the proposed action so as to enable them to prepare intelligently for the hearing.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bridgeport v. Plan & Zoning Commission, supra, 277 Conn. 276 , quoting Kleinsmith v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 157 Conn. 303, 310 , 254 A.2d 486 (1968); see also Passero v. Zoning Commission, 155 Conn. 511, 514 , 235 A.2d 660 (1967), cert. denied, 390 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Timber Trails Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission
It is dictated by common sense for protection of an established neighborhood to be subject to change only after fair notice.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Hutchison v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 138 Conn. 247, 251 , 83 A.2d 201 (1951), quoting Kane v. Board of Appeals of Medford, 273 Mass. 97, 104 , 173 N.E. 1 (1930); see also Passero v. Zoning Commission, 155 Conn. 511, 514 , 235 A.2d 660 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1004 , 88 S. Ct. 1248 , 20 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Laird
See, also, Brown v. Mc.namara (3d Cir. 1967) 387 F.2d 150 , cert. denied 390 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 1244 , 20 L.Ed.2d 105 3 Cf. United States v. Wood (4th Cir. 1972) 454 F.2d 765, 767 , where, becuase of failure of registrant to state a prima facie case, it was held the Selective Service Board was under no duty to state reasons for denial of CO status, with United States v. Broyles (4th Cir. 1970) 423 F.2d 1299, 1303-1304 , where, because the registrant had set forth a prima facie case, a statement of reasons for denial was found to be compelled.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States ex rel. Coates v. Laird
See, also, Brown v. McNamara (3d Cir. 1967) 387 F. 2d 150 , cert, denied 390 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 1244 , 20 L.Ed.2d 105 . .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cortright v. Resor
See, e. g., Brown v. McNamara, 263 F.Supp. 686 (D.N.J.), aff’d, 387 F.2d 150 (3d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 1244 , 20 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968); Noyd v. McNamara, 267 F.Supp. 701 (D.Colo.), aff’d, 378 F.2d 538 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1022 , 88 S.Ct. 593 , 19 L.Ed.2d 667 (1967).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
v.
Smoot
v.
Smoot
No. 1173.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 1, 1968.
John J. Bouhan and Glenn B. Hester for petitioner. Alton D. Kitchings for respondent.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.