green
Positive treatment
7.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wallace v. State
(2×)
Accord Stubbs v. Bordenkircher, 689 F.2d 1205, 1206-1207 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 907 , 103 S.Ct. 1879 , 76 L.Ed.2d 810 (1983) 3 ; Bailey v. Redman, 657 F.2d 21, 24 (3d Cir.1981)(affirming Bailey v. Redman, 502 F.Supp. 313 (D.Del.1980)), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 , 102 S.Ct. 1024 , 71 L.Ed.2d 310 (1982) 4 see also People v. Stewart, 161 Ill.App.3d 99, 103 , 112 Ill.Dec. 655 , 514 N.E.2d 51, 54 (1987)(“[T]here is no suggestion in the record that defendant desired, attempted, or was prevented from contacting counsel by the authorities at the jail.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. McKissick
(2×)
See United States v. DeMichael, 692 F.2d 1059, 1061-62 (7th Cir.1982) (vindictive prosecution not found where the defendant was prosecuted by the federal government after two state prosecutions were dismissed and a federal prosecution was disposed of by plea bargain), ce rt. denied, 461 U.S. 907 , 103 S.Ct. 1878 , 76 L.Ed.2d 809 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Patkus
See Griffin v. United States, 447 A.2d 776, 778 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 907 , 103 S.Ct. 1879 , 76 L.Ed.2d 810 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sterling R. Smith
(2×)
See United States v. DeMichael, 692 F.2d 1059, 1062 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 907 , 103 S.Ct. 1878 , 76 L.Ed.2d 809 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
McCostlin v. State
(2×)
See United States v. Alvarez, 696 F.2d 1307 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 907 , 103 S.Ct. 1878 , 76 L.Ed.2d 809 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Haney v. State
See Stubbs v. Borderkircher, 689 F.2d 1205 (4th Cir.1982), cert, denied, 461 U.S. 907 , 103 S.Ct. 1879 , 76 L.Ed.2d 810 (1983).
examined
Cited "see"
Barney Earl Crutchfield v. Louie L. Wainwright, Jim Smith
(4×)
See Bailey v. Redman, 657 F.2d 21 (3d Cir.1981), and Stubbs v. Bordenkircher, 689 F.2d 1205 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 907 , 103 S.Ct. 1879 , 76 L.Ed.2d 810 (1983). 50 As we noted above, Crutchfield's lawyers did not object, move for a mistrial, or ask to discuss testimonial or non-testimonial aspects of the case with him after the trial judge instructed them not to confer with Crutchfield.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Joe Dean Burney
(2×)
See United States v. Alvarez, 696 F.2d 1307, 1309 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 907 , 103 S.Ct. 1878 , 76 L.Ed.2d 809 (1983); United States v. Arias, 678 F.2d 1202, 1205 (4th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Phelps
(2×)
See United States v. Alvarez, 696 F. 2d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 1878 , 76 L.Ed. 2d 809 (1983); United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F. 2d 632, 637-38 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 365 , 66 L.Ed. 2d 221 (1980); United States v. Jackson, 627 F. 2d 1198, 1216-18 (D.C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jordan v. Gardner
Compare Tribble v. Gardner, 860 F.2d 321 , 325 n. 6 (9th Cir.1988) (digital rectal searches may inflict pain for Eighth Amendment purposes), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1075 , 109 S.Ct. 2087 , 104 L.Ed.2d 650 (1989) with Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491 , 493 n. 1 (9th Cir.1985) ("pat-down" searches (including groin area) of male inmates by female guards does not describe sufficient harm for Eighth Amendment protection) and Smith v. Fairman, 678 F.2d 52, 53 (7th Cir.1982) (per curiam) ("pat" searches of male inmates by female guards, during which the guards simply pat the clothing and avoid genital…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jordon v. Gardner
Compare Tribble v. Gardner, 860 F.2d 321 , 325 n. 6 (9th Cir.1988) (digital rectal searches may inflict pain for Eighth Amendment purposes), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1075 , 109 S.Ct. 2087 , 104 L.Ed.2d 650 (1989) with Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491 , 493 n. 1 (9th Cir.1985) (“pat-down” searches (including groin area) of male inmates by female guards does not describe sufficient harm for Eighth Amendment protection) and Smith v. Fairman, 678 F.2d 52, 53 (7th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (“pat” searches of male inmates by female guards, during which the guards simply pat the clothing and avoid…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Ali v. United States
See also Griffin v. United States, supra, 447 A.2d at 778-79, cert. denied, 461 U.S. 907 , 103 S.Ct. 1879 , 76 L.Ed.2d 810 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rushing v. Wayne County
(2×)
See, e.g., Smith v Fairman, 678 F2d 52 (CA 7, 1982), cert den 461 US 907 (1983) (limited frisk searches of males by female guards do not violate the constitutional right of privacy); Davis v Butcher, 853 F2d 718 (CA 9, 1988) (an inmate's constitutional right of privacy was not violated when the state corrections officer exhibited nude photographs of the inmate's wife to other inmates and made derogatory remarks to the desk sergeant regarding his wife's anatomy); Bagley v Watson, 579 F Supp 1099 (D Or, 1983) (clothed pat-down frisk searches and visual observation of male inmates by female guard…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Perry v. Leeke
(2×)
See also Stubbs v. Bordenkircher, 689 F. 2d 1205 (4th Cir. 1982) [,cert. denied, 461 U. S. 907 (1983)].
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Mebane
See, e.g., Stubbs v. Bordenkircher, 689 F.2d 1205, 1207 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 907 , 103 S. Ct. 1879 , 76 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
John M. Mudd v. United States
(2×)
Relying on many of the factors just addressed, the Romano court found Geders controlling despite the testimonial limitation on the judge's order, and found a sixth amendment violation. 736 F.2d at 1436-37 ; see also Stubbs v. Bordenkircher, 689 F.2d 1205, 1206 (4th Cir.1982) (trial court order not to discuss testimony during lunch hour held "constitutionally impermissible"), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 907 , 103 S.Ct. 1879 , 76 L.Ed.2d 810 (1983). 23 In short, the district judge's order violated the sixth amendment.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Edward Fields
(2×)
See also United States v. DeMichael, 692 F.2d 1059, 1062-63 (7th Cir.1982) (“It is most distasteful to be confronted with conflicting testimony by lawyers with respect to the terms of an agreement which ought to be clear and indisputable in its terms.”), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 907 , 103 S.Ct. 1878 , 76 L.Ed.2d 809 (1983).
Marino
v.
United States and Provost v. United States
v.
United States and Provost v. United States
No. 82-1569; No. 82-6390.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 25, 1983.
Published
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 694 F. 2d 898.