green
Positive treatment
6.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Laredo Offshore Constructors, Inc. v. Hunt Oil Company
But see Sohyde Drilling & Marine Co. v. Coastal States Gas Producing Co., 644 F.2d 1132, 1136 (5th Cir.) (blow out of gas well in dredged canal slip not actionable under Admiralty Extension Act), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981). 12 .
discussed
Cited "see"
ca9 1996
See Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 , 711 (9th Cir.) (government has same fiduciary relationship with the Northern Cheyenne Tribe as it does with the Crow Tribe), cert. denied, Crow Tribe of Indians v. EPA, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Indian Reservation v. Washington
See Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 , 711 (9th Cir.) (government has same fiduciary relationship with the Northern Cheyenne Tribe as it does with the Crow Tribe), cert. denied, Crow Tribe of Indians v. EPA, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Mississippi Department of Economic & Community Development v. United States Department of Labor
See 29 U.S.C. § 1603 . 9 . 635 F.2d 337 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981). 10 .
discussed
Cited "see"
National Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. United States
See United States v. Palm Beach Gardens, 635 F.2d 337, 340-41 (5th Cir.) (finding no limitation period for a suit of recovery of Hill-Burton funds under the Act), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Havasupai Tribe v. United States
See Nance v. Environmental Protection Agency, 645 F.2d 701, 711 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Covelo Indian Community v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
See Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 , 711 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
ca9 1990
See Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 , 711 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re the Complaint of Sheen
See Sohyde Drilling and Marine Co. v. Coastal States Gas Producing, 644 F.2d 1132, 1136 (5th Cir. cert. denied sub nom, Valero Energy Corp. v. Sohyde Drilling & Workover, Inc., 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981). 6 Accordingly, the Admiralty Extension Act covers only those torts that occur on navigable waters and have a sufficient “maritime flavor.” Sohyde Drilling, 644 F.2d at 1136 (citing Executive Jet).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mottolo
See generally United States v. City of Palm Beach Gardens, 685 F.2d 337, 341 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981) (where no applicable statute of limitations, United States government statutory action to recover government monies could be brought at any time). 2.
examined
Cited "see"
Douglas v. United States
(6×)
Accordingly, in determining whether a waiver of the right to conflict-free counsel was a possible alternative to a mistrial here, we must recognize that we are dealing not with a garden-variety case of “waiver”,... but rather with a conflict of two constitutional rights, to wit, the right of a criminal defendant to be represented by counsel of his own choice and the right of such a defendant United States v. Curcio (Curcio II), 694 F.2d 14, 22 (2d Cir.1982); see Lewis v. United States, 430 A.2d 528, 532-33 (D.C.) (per curiam) (Newman, C.J., dissenting), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Bird
Accord United States v. Carney, 665 F.2d 1064, 1065 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 636 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
William C. Davidson v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for United Bank of Texas, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee
(2×)
Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 , 58 S.Ct. 785 , 82 L.Ed. 1224 (1938); United States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414 , 60 S.Ct. 1019 , 84 L.Ed. 1283 (1940); see also United States v. Palm Beach Gardens, 635 F.2d 337, 339-40 (5th Cir.) (explaining that the general rule "derives from the common law principle that immunity from limitations periods is an essential prerogative of sovereignty"), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Whitely v. New Mexico State Personnel Board
See, e.g., Anderson v. City of Northlake, 500 F.Supp. 863, 866 (N.D.Ill.1980) (holding statutes in question did not evidence legislative intent to create binding contract), aff'd, 657 F.2d 272 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 636 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981); Washington Fed’n of State Employees v. State, 101 Wash.2d 536 , 682 P.2d 869, 872 (Wash.1984) (holding terms and conditions of public employment are basically controlled by statute rather than contract); Grant v. Nellius, 377 A.2d 354, 358 (Del.1977) (holding statute that altered future, unvested benefits of state employee…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Patrick L. Swindall
See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 344 , 94 S.Ct. 613, 618 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974); see also United States v. Carney, 665 F.2d 1064, 1065 (D.C.Cir. 1981) (applying general rule to Speech or Debate claim), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 636 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
St. John v. North Carolina Parole Commission
See id. at 792; see also Avery v. Maryland, 515 F.Supp. 818, 823 (D.Md.1980) (“[T]he presentation of expert testimony by the prosecution is neither mandated nor likely to be helpful to the jury in the routine obscenity case ... (and the) failure to provide such testimony is not a basis for habeas corpus relief”), aff'd 661 F.2d 917 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fitzgerald v. United States
Douglas, supra, 488 A.2d at 140-41 ; see also Lewis v. United States, 430 A.2d 528, 531 (D.C.) (Newman, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981). “[T]he choice as to which right shall take precedence must be left to the defendant, properly informed of that choice.” Douglas, supra, 488 A.2d at 144 (emphasis supplied).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The Blackfeet Tribe v. United States Department of Labor
(2×)
Further support for the standard can be derived from the well-established rule governing petitions to rehear final orders of administrative agencies. 18 In that context, courts have consistently ruled that administrative agencies should not be required to reopen their final orders "except in the most extraordinary circumstances." Mobil Oil Corp. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 685 F.2d 624, 631 (D.C.Cir.1982) (citations omitted); see also Nance v. Environmental Protection Agency, 645 F.2d 701, 717 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Northern Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel
However, proponents of the bill make clear that the good cause exception was not to be an ‘escape clause which may be arbitrarily exercised but requires legitimate grounds supported in law and fact by the required finding.’ Legitimate grounds were defined as an ‘urgency of conditions coupled with demonstrated and unavoidable limitations of time,’ and that the primary consideration was to be the ‘convenience or necessity of the people affected.’ ” United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir.1977) (footnotes omitted); see also Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 , 708-09 (9th …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The Northern Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel
However, proponents of the bill make clear that the good cause exception was not to be an 'escape clause which may be arbitrarily exercised but requires legitimate grounds supported in law and fact by the required finding.' Legitimate grounds were defined as an 'urgency of conditions coupled with demonstrated and unavoidable limitations of time,' and that the primary consideration was to be the 'convenience or necessity of the people affected.' " 51 United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir.1977) (footnotes omitted); see also Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 , 708-09 (9th Cir.), cert…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Welch v. United States
Pierce v. United States, 402 A.2d 1237, 1243-44 (D.C.1979); see also Lewis v. United States, 430 A.2d 528, 529-30 (D.C.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981); Monroe v. United States, 389 A.2d 811, 820-21 (D.C.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1006 , 99 S.Ct. 621 , 58 L.Ed.2d 683 (1978).
Christian
v.
Oklahoma
v.
Oklahoma
No. 80-6925.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 30, 1981.
Published
Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.