green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
8.1 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Gonzalez
decisions whether to engage in cross-examination, and if so to what extent and in what manner, are ... strategic in nature.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: The Matter Of The Grand v.
See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Issued June 18, 2009, 593 F.3d 155, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2010); Amato v. United States, 450 F.3d 46, 53 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v. Stone, 976 F.2d 909, 912 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1029 15 (1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. State
If the sentencer fairly could conclude that an aggravating circumstance applies to every defendant eligible for the death penalty, the circumstance is constitutionally infirm. 507 U.S. at 474, 113 S.Ct. at 1542 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Aref Elfgeeh
(2×)
See United States v. Eisen, 974 F.2d 246, 267 (2d Cir.1992) (individual interviews with the jurors were not necessary because “the defendants ... specifically requested that no such individual voir dire be conducted for fear of magnifying the problem”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1029 , 113 S.Ct. 1841 , 123 L.Ed.2d 467 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Elfgeeh
See United States v. Eisen, 974 F.2d 246, 267 (2d Cir.1992) (individual interviews with the jurors were not necessary because "the defendants . . . specifically requested that no such individual voir dire be conducted for fear of magnifying the problem"), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1029 , 113 S.Ct. 1841 , 123 L.Ed.2d 467 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Meneilly
See generally United States v. Eisen, 974 F.2d 246, 267-68 (2d Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1029 , 113 S.Ct. 1840 , 123 L.Ed.2d 467 (1993); United States v. Story, 891 F.2d 988, 993-96 (2d Cir.1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Monarch Assurance P.L.C. v. United States
See Bareford v. General Dynamics Corp., 973 F.2d 1138, 1141 (5th Cir.1992) (discussing different lines of authority), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1029 , 113 S.Ct. 1843 , 123 L.Ed.2d 468 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca2 1998
We agree. 17 51 Under ERISA, an employee benefit plan is required to be "established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument," 29 U.S.C. § 1102 (a)(1), and to "specify the basis on which payments are made ... from the plan." Id. at (b)(4); see Rinard v. Eastern Co., 978 F.2d 265 , 268 n. 2 (6th Cir.1992) (concluding that the pension plan need not be contained in a single written document), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1029 , 113 S.Ct. 1843 , 123 L.Ed.2d 468 (1993); Board of Trustees v. Weinstein, 107 F.3d 139 , 142-43 (2d Cir.1997) (defining "instrument" in section 1102(a)(1) as a "formal g…
discussed
Cited "see"
Krumme v. Westpoint Stevens Inc.
We agree. 17 Under ERISA, an employee benefit plan is required to be “established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument,” 29 U.S.C. § 1102 (a)(1), and to “specify the basis on which payments are made ... from the plan.” Id. at (b)(4); see Rinard v. Eastern Co., 978 F.2d 265 , 268 n. 2 (6th Cir.1992) (concluding that the pension plan need not be contained in a single written document), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1029 , 113 S.Ct. 1843 , 123 L.Ed.2d 468 (1993); Board of Trustees v. Weinstein, 107 F.3d 139 , 142-43 (2d Cir.1997) (defining “instrument” in section 1102(a)(1) as a …
cited
Cited "see"
American Mining Congress v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
See Johnson v. United States Railroad Retirement Bd., 969 F.2d 1082, 1093 (D.C.Cir.1992), ce rt. denied, 507 U.S. 1029 , 113 S.Ct. 1842 , 123 L.Ed.2d 467 (1993).
cited
Cited "see"
Alberto Quinones v. R.J. McClellan Superintendent
See United States v. Eisen, 974 F.2d 246, 265 (2d Cir.1992) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1029 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Frost v. Perry
See Bareford v. General Dynamics Corp., 973 F.2d 1138, 1141 (5th Cir.1993) (dismissal appropriate because “plaintiffs would be unable to prove their case without classified information and ... the very subject matter of the trial is a state secret”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1029 , 113 S.Ct. 1843 , 123 L.Ed.2d 468 ; Zuckerbraun v. General Dynamics Corp., 935 F.2d 544, 547-48 (2d Cir.1991) (“The very matter of this action is thus a state secret ... and there is no evidence available to the appellant to establish a prima facie case”); Farnsworth Cannon, Inc. v. Grimes, 635 F.2d 268, 281 (4…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re: Kossoff PLLC
See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Issued June 18, 2009, 593 F.3d 155, 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[T]he decision to incorporate is freely made and generates benefits, such as limited liability, and burdens, such as the need to respond to subpoenas for corporate records.”) (collecting cases); see also United States v. Stone, 976 F.2d 909, 912 (1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1029 , 113 S.Ct. 1843 , 123 L.Ed.2d 467 (1993) (finding that sole shareholder, director, officer and employee of a corporation issued a subpoena duces tecum held no Fifth Amendment privilege, and explaining that he “chose the corp…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hunt v. State
The Court finds that Hunt has failed to prove that trial counsel's performance was deficient or caused him to be prejudiced." (C.R. 844-45.) [14] "`[D]ecisions whether to engage in cross-examination, and if so to what extent and in what manner, are . . . strategic in nature.' United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1321 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 1018 , 98 L.Ed.2d 983 (1988); accord Eze v. Senkowski, 321 F.3d 110, 127 (2d Cir. 2003) (`"The conduct of examination and cross-examination is entrusted to the judgment of the lawyer. . . .'" (quoting United States v. Lu…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rosario-Dominguez v. United States
The Second Circuit has repeatedly held that “[d]ecisions whether to engage in cross-examination, and if so to what extent and in what manner, are ... strategic in nature.” United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1321 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 1018 , 98 L.Ed.2d 983 (1988); accord Eze v. Senkowski, 321 *516 F.3d 110, 127 (2d Cir.2003) (“ ‘The conduct of examination and cross-examination is entrusted to the judgment of the lawyer (quoting United States v. Luciano, 158 F.3d 655, 660 (2d Cir.1998))); see also United States v. Eisen, 974 F.2d 246, 265 (2d Cir.…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Wasserman v. Maimonides Medical Center
See, e.g., United States v. Eisen, 974 F.2d 246 , 253 & n. 2 (2d Cir.1992), ce rt. denied, 507 U.S. 1029 , 113 S.Ct. 1840 , 1841, 123 L.Ed.2d 467 (1993). 4 .
Creech
v.
Arave, Warden
v.
Arave, Warden
No. 91-7348.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 19, 1993.
507 U.S. 1029
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: D. Connecticut (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.