context
stringlengths 58
1.13k
| citation_a
dict | citation_b
dict | case_id
int64 475
12.5M
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
The transfers could still have been made for "value," however, if the debtors received "property" in exchange for the transfers. The consideration for the transfers was the use of the defendants' money over a period of time. The use of money may be "property" in some contexts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "implying that transfers were not fraudulent to the extent they did not exceed the legal rate of interest",
"sentence": "See also Larrimer v. Feeney, 411 Pa. 604, 192 A.2d 351, 354 (1963) (implying that transfers were not fraudulent to the extent they did not exceed the legal rate of interest). We conclude, however, that the use of investors’ money to perpetuate a Ponzi scheme is not the type of “property” and hence “value” Congress had in mind when it passed section 548(a)(2)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "104 S.Ct. 1086, 1090",
"parenthetical": "for federal gift tax purposes the use of money \"is itself a legally protectible property interest\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Dickman v. Commissioner, 465 U.S. 330, 336, 104 S.Ct. 1086, 1090, 79 L.Ed.2d 343 (1984) (for federal gift tax purposes the use of money “is itself a legally protectible property interest”)."
} | 6,542,005 | b |
The transfers could still have been made for "value," however, if the debtors received "property" in exchange for the transfers. The consideration for the transfers was the use of the defendants' money over a period of time. The use of money may be "property" in some contexts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "192 A.2d 351, 354",
"parenthetical": "implying that transfers were not fraudulent to the extent they did not exceed the legal rate of interest",
"sentence": "See also Larrimer v. Feeney, 411 Pa. 604, 192 A.2d 351, 354 (1963) (implying that transfers were not fraudulent to the extent they did not exceed the legal rate of interest). We conclude, however, that the use of investors’ money to perpetuate a Ponzi scheme is not the type of “property” and hence “value” Congress had in mind when it passed section 548(a)(2)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "104 S.Ct. 1086, 1090",
"parenthetical": "for federal gift tax purposes the use of money \"is itself a legally protectible property interest\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Dickman v. Commissioner, 465 U.S. 330, 336, 104 S.Ct. 1086, 1090, 79 L.Ed.2d 343 (1984) (for federal gift tax purposes the use of money “is itself a legally protectible property interest”)."
} | 6,542,005 | b |
The transfers could still have been made for "value," however, if the debtors received "property" in exchange for the transfers. The consideration for the transfers was the use of the defendants' money over a period of time. The use of money may be "property" in some contexts. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "for federal gift tax purposes the use of money \"is itself a legally protectible property interest\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Dickman v. Commissioner, 465 U.S. 330, 336, 104 S.Ct. 1086, 1090, 79 L.Ed.2d 343 (1984) (for federal gift tax purposes the use of money “is itself a legally protectible property interest”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "implying that transfers were not fraudulent to the extent they did not exceed the legal rate of interest",
"sentence": "See also Larrimer v. Feeney, 411 Pa. 604, 192 A.2d 351, 354 (1963) (implying that transfers were not fraudulent to the extent they did not exceed the legal rate of interest). We conclude, however, that the use of investors’ money to perpetuate a Ponzi scheme is not the type of “property” and hence “value” Congress had in mind when it passed section 548(a)(2)."
} | 6,542,005 | a |
The transfers could still have been made for "value," however, if the debtors received "property" in exchange for the transfers. The consideration for the transfers was the use of the defendants' money over a period of time. The use of money may be "property" in some contexts. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "192 A.2d 351, 354",
"parenthetical": "implying that transfers were not fraudulent to the extent they did not exceed the legal rate of interest",
"sentence": "See also Larrimer v. Feeney, 411 Pa. 604, 192 A.2d 351, 354 (1963) (implying that transfers were not fraudulent to the extent they did not exceed the legal rate of interest). We conclude, however, that the use of investors’ money to perpetuate a Ponzi scheme is not the type of “property” and hence “value” Congress had in mind when it passed section 548(a)(2)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "for federal gift tax purposes the use of money \"is itself a legally protectible property interest\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Dickman v. Commissioner, 465 U.S. 330, 336, 104 S.Ct. 1086, 1090, 79 L.Ed.2d 343 (1984) (for federal gift tax purposes the use of money “is itself a legally protectible property interest”)."
} | 6,542,005 | b |
Additionally, after Lugo requested identification and bus and claim tickets, the items were passed to Rote and another officer. Tr. 360-61. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "37 F.3d 510, 515",
"parenthetical": "in finding consent to search vehicle voluntary, court noted that officer was not in possession of driver's belongings",
"sentence": "See United States v. Perez, 37 F.3d 510, 515 (9th Cir.1994) (in finding consent to search vehicle voluntary, court noted that officer was not in possession of driver’s belongings); see also Chan-Jimenez, 125 F.3d at 1326 (seizure when officer takes possession of identification papers longer than necessary)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "125 F.3d 1326, 1326",
"parenthetical": "seizure when officer takes possession of identification papers longer than necessary",
"sentence": "See United States v. Perez, 37 F.3d 510, 515 (9th Cir.1994) (in finding consent to search vehicle voluntary, court noted that officer was not in possession of driver’s belongings); see also Chan-Jimenez, 125 F.3d at 1326 (seizure when officer takes possession of identification papers longer than necessary)."
} | 11,586,019 | a |
At the outset, the Court finds that this lawsuit is governed by federal rather than state law because the Declaratory Judgment Act addresses procedural as opposed to substantive rights. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "339 U.S. 667, 671",
"parenthetical": "recognizing that the Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural in nature and not an extension of federal court jurisdiction",
"sentence": "See Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Co. v. Born, 897 F.Supp. 122, 126 & n. 2 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (holding that the Declaratory Judgment Act, as opposed to state law, governs cases removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under an Erie analysis); De Feo v. Procter & Gamble Co., 831 F.Supp. 776, 779 (N.D.Cal.1993) (same); see also Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671, 70 S.Ct. 876, 878-79, 94 L.Ed. 1194 (1950) (recognizing that the Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural in nature and not an extension of federal court jurisdiction)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that the Declaratory Judgment Act, as opposed to state law, governs cases removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under an Erie analysis",
"sentence": "See Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Co. v. Born, 897 F.Supp. 122, 126 & n. 2 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (holding that the Declaratory Judgment Act, as opposed to state law, governs cases removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under an Erie analysis); De Feo v. Procter & Gamble Co., 831 F.Supp. 776, 779 (N.D.Cal.1993) (same); see also Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671, 70 S.Ct. 876, 878-79, 94 L.Ed. 1194 (1950) (recognizing that the Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural in nature and not an extension of federal court jurisdiction)."
} | 7,653,772 | b |
At the outset, the Court finds that this lawsuit is governed by federal rather than state law because the Declaratory Judgment Act addresses procedural as opposed to substantive rights. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "70 S.Ct. 876, 878-79",
"parenthetical": "recognizing that the Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural in nature and not an extension of federal court jurisdiction",
"sentence": "See Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Co. v. Born, 897 F.Supp. 122, 126 & n. 2 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (holding that the Declaratory Judgment Act, as opposed to state law, governs cases removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under an Erie analysis); De Feo v. Procter & Gamble Co., 831 F.Supp. 776, 779 (N.D.Cal.1993) (same); see also Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671, 70 S.Ct. 876, 878-79, 94 L.Ed. 1194 (1950) (recognizing that the Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural in nature and not an extension of federal court jurisdiction)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that the Declaratory Judgment Act, as opposed to state law, governs cases removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under an Erie analysis",
"sentence": "See Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Co. v. Born, 897 F.Supp. 122, 126 & n. 2 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (holding that the Declaratory Judgment Act, as opposed to state law, governs cases removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under an Erie analysis); De Feo v. Procter & Gamble Co., 831 F.Supp. 776, 779 (N.D.Cal.1993) (same); see also Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671, 70 S.Ct. 876, 878-79, 94 L.Ed. 1194 (1950) (recognizing that the Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural in nature and not an extension of federal court jurisdiction)."
} | 7,653,772 | b |
At the outset, the Court finds that this lawsuit is governed by federal rather than state law because the Declaratory Judgment Act addresses procedural as opposed to substantive rights. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "recognizing that the Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural in nature and not an extension of federal court jurisdiction",
"sentence": "See Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Co. v. Born, 897 F.Supp. 122, 126 & n. 2 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (holding that the Declaratory Judgment Act, as opposed to state law, governs cases removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under an Erie analysis); De Feo v. Procter & Gamble Co., 831 F.Supp. 776, 779 (N.D.Cal.1993) (same); see also Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671, 70 S.Ct. 876, 878-79, 94 L.Ed. 1194 (1950) (recognizing that the Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural in nature and not an extension of federal court jurisdiction)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that the Declaratory Judgment Act, as opposed to state law, governs cases removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under an Erie analysis",
"sentence": "See Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Co. v. Born, 897 F.Supp. 122, 126 & n. 2 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (holding that the Declaratory Judgment Act, as opposed to state law, governs cases removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under an Erie analysis); De Feo v. Procter & Gamble Co., 831 F.Supp. 776, 779 (N.D.Cal.1993) (same); see also Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671, 70 S.Ct. 876, 878-79, 94 L.Ed. 1194 (1950) (recognizing that the Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural in nature and not an extension of federal court jurisdiction)."
} | 7,653,772 | b |
Gibson next argues the. district court erred by applying a five-level enhancement under. SS 4B1.5(b). He contends the two separate occasions the guideline requires to constitute a "pattern of activity" should not include activity involved in his instant offense of conviction for sex trafficking, i.e., the multiple occasions he posted ads on Backpage.com, the multiple occasions the minor engaged in' prohibited sexual conduct at his direction, his production of a sexually explicit video of the minor, or his own sexual contact with the victim. This argument is foreclosed by our precedent. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "648 F.3d 671, 675",
"parenthetical": "\"[O]ne panel of this Court is not at liberty to overrule an -opinion filed by. another panel\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Rojas, 520 F.3d 876, 883 (8th Cir. 2008) (“We now hold that subsection (b) [of § 4B1.5] may apply where there is no prior sex offense conviction and the only ‘pattern of ... .conduct’ is conduct involved in the present offense of conviction”); see also United States v. Wells, 648 F.3d 671, 675 (8th Cir. 2011) (“[O]ne panel of this Court is not at liberty to overrule an -opinion filed by. another panel”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "520 F.3d 876, 883",
"parenthetical": "\"We now hold that subsection (b) [of SS 4B1.5] may apply where there is no prior sex offense conviction and the only 'pattern of ... .conduct' is conduct involved in the present offense of conviction\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Rojas, 520 F.3d 876, 883 (8th Cir. 2008) (“We now hold that subsection (b) [of § 4B1.5] may apply where there is no prior sex offense conviction and the only ‘pattern of ... .conduct’ is conduct involved in the present offense of conviction”); see also United States v. Wells, 648 F.3d 671, 675 (8th Cir. 2011) (“[O]ne panel of this Court is not at liberty to overrule an -opinion filed by. another panel”)."
} | 12,174,277 | b |
DIRECTV argues that "[b]ecause Plaintiffs are not members of the general public, Plaintiffs .are not entitled to [section] 17200 protections for fraudulent actions." DIRECTV's Mem. of P's & A's in Support of its Reply to Motion No. 2 at 21:12-13. The Court agrees. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "178 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1121",
"parenthetical": "\"it is \"necessary under the 'fraudulent' prong [of the UCL] to show deception to some members of the public, or harm to the public interest, and not merely to the direct competitor or other non-consumer party to a contract.\" \"",
"sentence": "See South Bay Chevrolet v. GMAC, 72 Cal.App.4th 861, 888, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 (1999) (“ ‘Fraudulent,’ as used in the statute, does not refer to the common law tort of fraud but only requires a showing members of the public are likely to be deceived.”) (internal quotations omitted); see also Watson Labs., 178 F.Supp.2d at 1121 (“it is “necessary under the ‘fraudulent’ prong [of the UCL] to show deception to some members of the public, or harm to the public interest, and not merely to the direct competitor or other non-consumer party to a contract.” ”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "72 Cal.App.4th 861, 888",
"parenthetical": "\" 'Fraudulent,' as used in the statute, does not refer to the common law tort of fraud but only requires a showing members of the public are likely to be deceived.\"",
"sentence": "See South Bay Chevrolet v. GMAC, 72 Cal.App.4th 861, 888, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 (1999) (“ ‘Fraudulent,’ as used in the statute, does not refer to the common law tort of fraud but only requires a showing members of the public are likely to be deceived.”) (internal quotations omitted); see also Watson Labs., 178 F.Supp.2d at 1121 (“it is “necessary under the ‘fraudulent’ prong [of the UCL] to show deception to some members of the public, or harm to the public interest, and not merely to the direct competitor or other non-consumer party to a contract.” ”)."
} | 9,234,285 | b |
DIRECTV argues that "[b]ecause Plaintiffs are not members of the general public, Plaintiffs .are not entitled to [section] 17200 protections for fraudulent actions." DIRECTV's Mem. of P's & A's in Support of its Reply to Motion No. 2 at 21:12-13. The Court agrees. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "178 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1121",
"parenthetical": "\"it is \"necessary under the 'fraudulent' prong [of the UCL] to show deception to some members of the public, or harm to the public interest, and not merely to the direct competitor or other non-consumer party to a contract.\" \"",
"sentence": "See South Bay Chevrolet v. GMAC, 72 Cal.App.4th 861, 888, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 (1999) (“ ‘Fraudulent,’ as used in the statute, does not refer to the common law tort of fraud but only requires a showing members of the public are likely to be deceived.”) (internal quotations omitted); see also Watson Labs., 178 F.Supp.2d at 1121 (“it is “necessary under the ‘fraudulent’ prong [of the UCL] to show deception to some members of the public, or harm to the public interest, and not merely to the direct competitor or other non-consumer party to a contract.” ”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\" 'Fraudulent,' as used in the statute, does not refer to the common law tort of fraud but only requires a showing members of the public are likely to be deceived.\"",
"sentence": "See South Bay Chevrolet v. GMAC, 72 Cal.App.4th 861, 888, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 (1999) (“ ‘Fraudulent,’ as used in the statute, does not refer to the common law tort of fraud but only requires a showing members of the public are likely to be deceived.”) (internal quotations omitted); see also Watson Labs., 178 F.Supp.2d at 1121 (“it is “necessary under the ‘fraudulent’ prong [of the UCL] to show deception to some members of the public, or harm to the public interest, and not merely to the direct competitor or other non-consumer party to a contract.” ”)."
} | 9,234,285 | b |
The letter sent to AG merely stated that there was no record of a previous NOD and that the appeal period for the 1983 decision had expired; it also provided instructions for AG to reopen his claim. The statute, however, states that the VA must provide to a claimant notice of any decision affecting the provision of benefits to a claimant, and that "[t]he notice shall include an explanation of the procedure for obtaining review of the decision." 38 U.S.C. SS 5104(a). The right to notice was also promulgated in the VA's governing regulations. 38 C.F.R. SS 3.103(b). According to the rule set out by the Veterans Court, the consequence of a failure to notify in accordance with the regulation renders the RO's determination non-final. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "10 Vet.App. 325, 325",
"parenthetical": "failure to notify claimant that he was denied service connection for a particular condition constituted a procedural error under 38 C.F.R. SSSS 3.103(e",
"sentence": "Best v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. at 325 (failure to notify claimant that he was denied service connection for a particular condition constituted a procedural error under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(e) and 3.104(a), rendered the RO’s decision not final, and deprived the Veterans Court of jurisdiction over the claim); see also Juarez v. Peake, 21 Vet.App. 537, 543 (2008) (finding that RO decision was final where it “provided notice that compensation ... was being denied and gave [appellant] the opportunity to appeal and present any and all arguments of error, including the argument that its determination on the finality of [an earlier] RO decision was flawed”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "21 Vet.App. 537, 543",
"parenthetical": "finding that RO decision was final where it \"provided notice that compensation ... was being denied and gave [appellant] the opportunity to appeal and present any and all arguments of error, including the argument that its determination on the finality of [an earlier] RO decision was flawed\"",
"sentence": "Best v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. at 325 (failure to notify claimant that he was denied service connection for a particular condition constituted a procedural error under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(e) and 3.104(a), rendered the RO’s decision not final, and deprived the Veterans Court of jurisdiction over the claim); see also Juarez v. Peake, 21 Vet.App. 537, 543 (2008) (finding that RO decision was final where it “provided notice that compensation ... was being denied and gave [appellant] the opportunity to appeal and present any and all arguments of error, including the argument that its determination on the finality of [an earlier] RO decision was flawed”)."
} | 5,634,867 | a |
Our jurisdiction, like that of all federal courts other than the Supreme Court, is established solely by Congress, not the Court. As my colleagues seem to admit, the requirement in our Court for a case or controversy is an important prudential rule wisely adopted by the Court in its formative year, but it is not in our jurisdictional statute. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "1 Vet.App. 12, 15",
"parenthetical": "adopting \"as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric\"",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "473 F.3d 1364, 1370",
"parenthetical": "noting that this Court is \"not formally bound by\" the case or controversy requirement but \"nevertheless, adheres to it\"",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | 4,153,789 | a |
Our jurisdiction, like that of all federal courts other than the Supreme Court, is established solely by Congress, not the Court. As my colleagues seem to admit, the requirement in our Court for a case or controversy is an important prudential rule wisely adopted by the Court in its formative year, but it is not in our jurisdictional statute. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2 Vet.App. 252, 254",
"parenthetical": "noting that this Court is \"not formally bound by\" the case or controversy requirement but \"nevertheless, adheres to it\"",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "1 Vet.App. 12, 15",
"parenthetical": "adopting \"as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric\"",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | 4,153,789 | b |
Our jurisdiction, like that of all federal courts other than the Supreme Court, is established solely by Congress, not the Court. As my colleagues seem to admit, the requirement in our Court for a case or controversy is an important prudential rule wisely adopted by the Court in its formative year, but it is not in our jurisdictional statute. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "49 U.S. 449, 449",
"parenthetical": "noting that this Court is \"not formally bound by\" the case or controversy requirement but \"nevertheless, adheres to it\"",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "1 Vet.App. 12, 15",
"parenthetical": "adopting \"as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric\"",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | 4,153,789 | b |
Our jurisdiction, like that of all federal courts other than the Supreme Court, is established solely by Congress, not the Court. As my colleagues seem to admit, the requirement in our Court for a case or controversy is an important prudential rule wisely adopted by the Court in its formative year, but it is not in our jurisdictional statute. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "1 Vet.App. 12, 15",
"parenthetical": "adopting \"as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric\"",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206",
"parenthetical": "finding that 38 U.S.C. SS 7266(a) was an \"important procedural rule\" but not jurisdictional",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | 4,153,789 | a |
Our jurisdiction, like that of all federal courts other than the Supreme Court, is established solely by Congress, not the Court. As my colleagues seem to admit, the requirement in our Court for a case or controversy is an important prudential rule wisely adopted by the Court in its formative year, but it is not in our jurisdictional statute. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "1 Vet.App. 12, 15",
"parenthetical": "adopting \"as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric\"",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that 38 U.S.C. SS 7266(a) was an \"important procedural rule\" but not jurisdictional",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | 4,153,789 | a |
Our jurisdiction, like that of all federal courts other than the Supreme Court, is established solely by Congress, not the Court. As my colleagues seem to admit, the requirement in our Court for a case or controversy is an important prudential rule wisely adopted by the Court in its formative year, but it is not in our jurisdictional statute. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206",
"parenthetical": "finding that 38 U.S.C. SS 7266(a) was an \"important procedural rule\" but not jurisdictional",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "473 F.3d 1364, 1370",
"parenthetical": "noting that this Court is \"not formally bound by\" the case or controversy requirement but \"nevertheless, adheres to it\"",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | 4,153,789 | b |
Our jurisdiction, like that of all federal courts other than the Supreme Court, is established solely by Congress, not the Court. As my colleagues seem to admit, the requirement in our Court for a case or controversy is an important prudential rule wisely adopted by the Court in its formative year, but it is not in our jurisdictional statute. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that 38 U.S.C. SS 7266(a) was an \"important procedural rule\" but not jurisdictional",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "473 F.3d 1364, 1370",
"parenthetical": "noting that this Court is \"not formally bound by\" the case or controversy requirement but \"nevertheless, adheres to it\"",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | 4,153,789 | b |
Our jurisdiction, like that of all federal courts other than the Supreme Court, is established solely by Congress, not the Court. As my colleagues seem to admit, the requirement in our Court for a case or controversy is an important prudential rule wisely adopted by the Court in its formative year, but it is not in our jurisdictional statute. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206",
"parenthetical": "finding that 38 U.S.C. SS 7266(a) was an \"important procedural rule\" but not jurisdictional",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2 Vet.App. 252, 254",
"parenthetical": "noting that this Court is \"not formally bound by\" the case or controversy requirement but \"nevertheless, adheres to it\"",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | 4,153,789 | b |
Our jurisdiction, like that of all federal courts other than the Supreme Court, is established solely by Congress, not the Court. As my colleagues seem to admit, the requirement in our Court for a case or controversy is an important prudential rule wisely adopted by the Court in its formative year, but it is not in our jurisdictional statute. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2 Vet.App. 252, 254",
"parenthetical": "noting that this Court is \"not formally bound by\" the case or controversy requirement but \"nevertheless, adheres to it\"",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that 38 U.S.C. SS 7266(a) was an \"important procedural rule\" but not jurisdictional",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | 4,153,789 | a |
Our jurisdiction, like that of all federal courts other than the Supreme Court, is established solely by Congress, not the Court. As my colleagues seem to admit, the requirement in our Court for a case or controversy is an important prudential rule wisely adopted by the Court in its formative year, but it is not in our jurisdictional statute. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "49 U.S. 449, 449",
"parenthetical": "noting that this Court is \"not formally bound by\" the case or controversy requirement but \"nevertheless, adheres to it\"",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206",
"parenthetical": "finding that 38 U.S.C. SS 7266(a) was an \"important procedural rule\" but not jurisdictional",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | 4,153,789 | a |
Our jurisdiction, like that of all federal courts other than the Supreme Court, is established solely by Congress, not the Court. As my colleagues seem to admit, the requirement in our Court for a case or controversy is an important prudential rule wisely adopted by the Court in its formative year, but it is not in our jurisdictional statute. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that 38 U.S.C. SS 7266(a) was an \"important procedural rule\" but not jurisdictional",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "49 U.S. 449, 449",
"parenthetical": "noting that this Court is \"not formally bound by\" the case or controversy requirement but \"nevertheless, adheres to it\"",
"sentence": "See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant)."
} | 4,153,789 | b |
Despite plaintiffs assertion that her performance was satisfactory, "[i]t is the manager's perception of the employee's performance that is relevant, not plaintiffs subjective evaluation of [her] own relative performance." | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "82 F.3d 980, 987",
"parenthetical": "granting JMOL in favor of defendant because ADEA plaintiff failed to show reduction in force was pretextual",
"sentence": "Furr v. Seagate Technology, Inc., 82 F.3d 980, 987 (10th Cir.1996) (granting JMOL in favor of defendant because ADEA plaintiff failed to show reduction in force was pretextual); see also Fallis v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 944 F.2d 743, 747 (10th Cir.1991)(“plaintiffs general dispute concerning [] job performance, in the absence of any other evidence of age discrimination, does not provide a sufficient basis for a jury to infer that [defendant] terminated plaintiff on the basis of [ ] age.”). Further, the fact that the Civil Service Board and state district court upheld plaintiffs dismissal supports the validity of the evaluations."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "944 F.2d 743, 747",
"parenthetical": "\"plaintiffs general dispute concerning [] job performance, in the absence of any other evidence of age discrimination, does not provide a sufficient basis for a jury to infer that [defendant] terminated plaintiff on the basis of [ ] age.\"",
"sentence": "Furr v. Seagate Technology, Inc., 82 F.3d 980, 987 (10th Cir.1996) (granting JMOL in favor of defendant because ADEA plaintiff failed to show reduction in force was pretextual); see also Fallis v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 944 F.2d 743, 747 (10th Cir.1991)(“plaintiffs general dispute concerning [] job performance, in the absence of any other evidence of age discrimination, does not provide a sufficient basis for a jury to infer that [defendant] terminated plaintiff on the basis of [ ] age.”). Further, the fact that the Civil Service Board and state district court upheld plaintiffs dismissal supports the validity of the evaluations."
} | 1,626,189 | a |
In addition, several of our sister circuits have found expressly that the term "interstate or foreign commerce" is a single unitary concept rather than two separate bases for jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "981 F.2d 645, 648",
"parenthetical": "defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words \"Made in West Germany\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "665 F.2d 674, 678",
"parenthetical": "\"The word 'commerce' is consistently preceded in the statute by 'interstate or foreign' without any hint that 'commerce' should have separate meanings for each.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | 11,323,660 | b |
In addition, several of our sister circuits have found expressly that the term "interstate or foreign commerce" is a single unitary concept rather than two separate bases for jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "665 F.2d 674, 678",
"parenthetical": "\"The word 'commerce' is consistently preceded in the statute by 'interstate or foreign' without any hint that 'commerce' should have separate meanings for each.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words \"Made in West Germany\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | 11,323,660 | a |
In addition, several of our sister circuits have found expressly that the term "interstate or foreign commerce" is a single unitary concept rather than two separate bases for jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "665 F.2d 674, 678",
"parenthetical": "\"The word 'commerce' is consistently preceded in the statute by 'interstate or foreign' without any hint that 'commerce' should have separate meanings for each.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words \"Made in West Germany\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | 11,323,660 | a |
In addition, several of our sister circuits have found expressly that the term "interstate or foreign commerce" is a single unitary concept rather than two separate bases for jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words \"Made in West Germany\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "665 F.2d 674, 678",
"parenthetical": "\"The word 'commerce' is consistently preceded in the statute by 'interstate or foreign' without any hint that 'commerce' should have separate meanings for each.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | 11,323,660 | b |
In addition, several of our sister circuits have found expressly that the term "interstate or foreign commerce" is a single unitary concept rather than two separate bases for jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "981 F.2d 645, 648",
"parenthetical": "defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words \"Made in West Germany\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"The word 'commerce' is consistently preceded in the statute by 'interstate or foreign' without any hint that 'commerce' should have separate meanings for each.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | 11,323,660 | b |
In addition, several of our sister circuits have found expressly that the term "interstate or foreign commerce" is a single unitary concept rather than two separate bases for jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"The word 'commerce' is consistently preceded in the statute by 'interstate or foreign' without any hint that 'commerce' should have separate meanings for each.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words \"Made in West Germany\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | 11,323,660 | a |
In addition, several of our sister circuits have found expressly that the term "interstate or foreign commerce" is a single unitary concept rather than two separate bases for jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"The word 'commerce' is consistently preceded in the statute by 'interstate or foreign' without any hint that 'commerce' should have separate meanings for each.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words \"Made in West Germany\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | 11,323,660 | a |
In addition, several of our sister circuits have found expressly that the term "interstate or foreign commerce" is a single unitary concept rather than two separate bases for jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words \"Made in West Germany\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"The word 'commerce' is consistently preceded in the statute by 'interstate or foreign' without any hint that 'commerce' should have separate meanings for each.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | 11,323,660 | b |
In addition, several of our sister circuits have found expressly that the term "interstate or foreign commerce" is a single unitary concept rather than two separate bases for jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"The word 'commerce' is consistently preceded in the statute by 'interstate or foreign' without any hint that 'commerce' should have separate meanings for each.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "981 F.2d 645, 648",
"parenthetical": "defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words \"Made in West Germany\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | 11,323,660 | a |
In addition, several of our sister circuits have found expressly that the term "interstate or foreign commerce" is a single unitary concept rather than two separate bases for jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"The word 'commerce' is consistently preceded in the statute by 'interstate or foreign' without any hint that 'commerce' should have separate meanings for each.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words \"Made in West Germany\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | 11,323,660 | a |
In addition, several of our sister circuits have found expressly that the term "interstate or foreign commerce" is a single unitary concept rather than two separate bases for jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"The word 'commerce' is consistently preceded in the statute by 'interstate or foreign' without any hint that 'commerce' should have separate meanings for each.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words \"Made in West Germany\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | 11,323,660 | a |
In addition, several of our sister circuits have found expressly that the term "interstate or foreign commerce" is a single unitary concept rather than two separate bases for jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"The word 'commerce' is consistently preceded in the statute by 'interstate or foreign' without any hint that 'commerce' should have separate meanings for each.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words \"Made in West Germany\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | 11,323,660 | a |
In addition, several of our sister circuits have found expressly that the term "interstate or foreign commerce" is a single unitary concept rather than two separate bases for jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "981 F.2d 645, 648",
"parenthetical": "defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words \"Made in West Germany\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"The word 'commerce' is consistently preceded in the statute by 'interstate or foreign' without any hint that 'commerce' should have separate meanings for each.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | 11,323,660 | b |
In addition, several of our sister circuits have found expressly that the term "interstate or foreign commerce" is a single unitary concept rather than two separate bases for jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words \"Made in West Germany\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"The word 'commerce' is consistently preceded in the statute by 'interstate or foreign' without any hint that 'commerce' should have separate meanings for each.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | 11,323,660 | b |
In addition, several of our sister circuits have found expressly that the term "interstate or foreign commerce" is a single unitary concept rather than two separate bases for jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"The word 'commerce' is consistently preceded in the statute by 'interstate or foreign' without any hint that 'commerce' should have separate meanings for each.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words \"Made in West Germany\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | 11,323,660 | a |
In addition, several of our sister circuits have found expressly that the term "interstate or foreign commerce" is a single unitary concept rather than two separate bases for jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"The word 'commerce' is consistently preceded in the statute by 'interstate or foreign' without any hint that 'commerce' should have separate meanings for each.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words \"Made in West Germany\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 1427, 122 L.Ed.2d 795 (1993); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 678 (5th Cir. Unit B) (“The word ‘commerce’ is consistently preceded in the statute by ‘interstate or foreign’ without any hint that ‘commerce’ should have separate meanings for each.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2306, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); cf. United States v. Carter, 981 F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir.1992) (defendant was on notice that the pistol he possessed had travelled to Vermont via interstate commerce because the pistol was imprinted with the words “Made in West Germany”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993)."
} | 11,323,660 | a |
The Supreme Court has held that a sentencing adjustment, pursuant to SS 3582(c)(2), is not a resentencing proceeding. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "providing that SS 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resen-tencing, but instead permits a modification by giving courts the power to reduce a sentence within the narrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission",
"sentence": "Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2690-91, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (providing that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resen-tencing, but instead permits a modification by giving courts the power to reduce a sentence within the narrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "203 F.3d 778, 781-82",
"parenthetical": "holding that constitutional claims are \"extraneous resentencing issues\" that a court cannot address during a SS 3582(c",
"sentence": "A § 3582(c)(2) proceeding has a limited scope and purpose, is “not constitutionally compelled,” and represents a “congressional act of lenity.” Id. at -, 130 S.Ct. at 2691-92; see also United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781-82 (11th Cir.2000) (holding that constitutional claims are “extraneous resentencing issues” that a court cannot address during a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, and that a defendant is entitled to raise constitutional challenges to a sentence by making a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). Rather, all original sentencing determinations remain unchanged, with the sole exception of the change in the guideline range that has been amended since the original sentencing."
} | 3,629,316 | a |
The Supreme Court has held that a sentencing adjustment, pursuant to SS 3582(c)(2), is not a resentencing proceeding. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "130 S.Ct. 2683, 2690-91",
"parenthetical": "providing that SS 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resen-tencing, but instead permits a modification by giving courts the power to reduce a sentence within the narrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission",
"sentence": "Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2690-91, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (providing that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resen-tencing, but instead permits a modification by giving courts the power to reduce a sentence within the narrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "203 F.3d 778, 781-82",
"parenthetical": "holding that constitutional claims are \"extraneous resentencing issues\" that a court cannot address during a SS 3582(c",
"sentence": "A § 3582(c)(2) proceeding has a limited scope and purpose, is “not constitutionally compelled,” and represents a “congressional act of lenity.” Id. at -, 130 S.Ct. at 2691-92; see also United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781-82 (11th Cir.2000) (holding that constitutional claims are “extraneous resentencing issues” that a court cannot address during a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, and that a defendant is entitled to raise constitutional challenges to a sentence by making a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). Rather, all original sentencing determinations remain unchanged, with the sole exception of the change in the guideline range that has been amended since the original sentencing."
} | 3,629,316 | a |
The Supreme Court has held that a sentencing adjustment, pursuant to SS 3582(c)(2), is not a resentencing proceeding. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "203 F.3d 778, 781-82",
"parenthetical": "holding that constitutional claims are \"extraneous resentencing issues\" that a court cannot address during a SS 3582(c",
"sentence": "A § 3582(c)(2) proceeding has a limited scope and purpose, is “not constitutionally compelled,” and represents a “congressional act of lenity.” Id. at -, 130 S.Ct. at 2691-92; see also United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781-82 (11th Cir.2000) (holding that constitutional claims are “extraneous resentencing issues” that a court cannot address during a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, and that a defendant is entitled to raise constitutional challenges to a sentence by making a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). Rather, all original sentencing determinations remain unchanged, with the sole exception of the change in the guideline range that has been amended since the original sentencing."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "providing that SS 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resen-tencing, but instead permits a modification by giving courts the power to reduce a sentence within the narrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission",
"sentence": "Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2690-91, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (providing that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resen-tencing, but instead permits a modification by giving courts the power to reduce a sentence within the narrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission)."
} | 3,629,316 | b |
Even if late-filed tax documents, can sometimes qualify as returns, the BAPCPA definition also demands that a return satisfy "the requirements of applicable nonbankruptcy law." Both parties to this ease, and all courts to consider the issue, agree that the term "applicable nonb'ankruptcy law" incorporates the Beard test. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "473 B.R. 504, 507",
"parenthetical": "declining to apply Beard test because the one-day-late rule meant that late tax filings could never be returns, and therefore declining to apply any \"applicable non-bankruptcy law\" at all",
"sentence": "See, e.g., In re Martin, 500 B.R. 1, 8 (D.Colo.2013) aff'd sub nom. In re Mallo, 774 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir.2014) (holding that the Beard test “constituted the ‘applicable nonbankruptcy law1 — pursuant to the first sentence of the hanging paragraph provided by the BAPCPA — for purposes of determining whether a filing is a ‘return’ under § 523(a)(l)(B)(i)”); In re Rhodes, 498 B.R. 357, 367 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2013). (applying Beard test “to determine whether a later filed, post-assessment return is, in fact, a ‘return’ for purposes of dischargeability considerations under clause (i) of § 523(a)(1)(B)”); cf. In re Casano, 473 B.R. 504, 507 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.2012) (declining to apply Beard test because the one-day-late rule meant that late tax filings could never be returns, and therefore declining to apply any “applicable non-bankruptcy law” at all)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "500 B.R. 1, 8",
"parenthetical": "holding that the Beard test \"constituted the 'applicable nonbankruptcy law1 -- pursuant to the first sentence of the hanging paragraph provided by the BAPCPA -- for purposes of determining whether a filing is a 'return' under SS 523(a",
"sentence": "See, e.g., In re Martin, 500 B.R. 1, 8 (D.Colo.2013) aff'd sub nom. In re Mallo, 774 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir.2014) (holding that the Beard test “constituted the ‘applicable nonbankruptcy law1 — pursuant to the first sentence of the hanging paragraph provided by the BAPCPA — for purposes of determining whether a filing is a ‘return’ under § 523(a)(l)(B)(i)”); In re Rhodes, 498 B.R. 357, 367 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2013). (applying Beard test “to determine whether a later filed, post-assessment return is, in fact, a ‘return’ for purposes of dischargeability considerations under clause (i) of § 523(a)(1)(B)”); cf. In re Casano, 473 B.R. 504, 507 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.2012) (declining to apply Beard test because the one-day-late rule meant that late tax filings could never be returns, and therefore declining to apply any “applicable non-bankruptcy law” at all)."
} | 6,812,077 | b |
Even if late-filed tax documents, can sometimes qualify as returns, the BAPCPA definition also demands that a return satisfy "the requirements of applicable nonbankruptcy law." Both parties to this ease, and all courts to consider the issue, agree that the term "applicable nonb'ankruptcy law" incorporates the Beard test. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "473 B.R. 504, 507",
"parenthetical": "declining to apply Beard test because the one-day-late rule meant that late tax filings could never be returns, and therefore declining to apply any \"applicable non-bankruptcy law\" at all",
"sentence": "See, e.g., In re Martin, 500 B.R. 1, 8 (D.Colo.2013) aff'd sub nom. In re Mallo, 774 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir.2014) (holding that the Beard test “constituted the ‘applicable nonbankruptcy law1 — pursuant to the first sentence of the hanging paragraph provided by the BAPCPA — for purposes of determining whether a filing is a ‘return’ under § 523(a)(l)(B)(i)”); In re Rhodes, 498 B.R. 357, 367 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2013). (applying Beard test “to determine whether a later filed, post-assessment return is, in fact, a ‘return’ for purposes of dischargeability considerations under clause (i) of § 523(a)(1)(B)”); cf. In re Casano, 473 B.R. 504, 507 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.2012) (declining to apply Beard test because the one-day-late rule meant that late tax filings could never be returns, and therefore declining to apply any “applicable non-bankruptcy law” at all)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that the Beard test \"constituted the 'applicable nonbankruptcy law1 -- pursuant to the first sentence of the hanging paragraph provided by the BAPCPA -- for purposes of determining whether a filing is a 'return' under SS 523(a",
"sentence": "See, e.g., In re Martin, 500 B.R. 1, 8 (D.Colo.2013) aff'd sub nom. In re Mallo, 774 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir.2014) (holding that the Beard test “constituted the ‘applicable nonbankruptcy law1 — pursuant to the first sentence of the hanging paragraph provided by the BAPCPA — for purposes of determining whether a filing is a ‘return’ under § 523(a)(l)(B)(i)”); In re Rhodes, 498 B.R. 357, 367 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2013). (applying Beard test “to determine whether a later filed, post-assessment return is, in fact, a ‘return’ for purposes of dischargeability considerations under clause (i) of § 523(a)(1)(B)”); cf. In re Casano, 473 B.R. 504, 507 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.2012) (declining to apply Beard test because the one-day-late rule meant that late tax filings could never be returns, and therefore declining to apply any “applicable non-bankruptcy law” at all)."
} | 6,812,077 | b |
Even if late-filed tax documents, can sometimes qualify as returns, the BAPCPA definition also demands that a return satisfy "the requirements of applicable nonbankruptcy law." Both parties to this ease, and all courts to consider the issue, agree that the term "applicable nonb'ankruptcy law" incorporates the Beard test. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "498 B.R. 357, 367",
"parenthetical": "applying Beard test \"to determine whether a later filed, post-assessment return is, in fact, a 'return' for purposes of dischargeability considerations under clause (i",
"sentence": "See, e.g., In re Martin, 500 B.R. 1, 8 (D.Colo.2013) aff'd sub nom. In re Mallo, 774 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir.2014) (holding that the Beard test “constituted the ‘applicable nonbankruptcy law1 — pursuant to the first sentence of the hanging paragraph provided by the BAPCPA — for purposes of determining whether a filing is a ‘return’ under § 523(a)(l)(B)(i)”); In re Rhodes, 498 B.R. 357, 367 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2013). (applying Beard test “to determine whether a later filed, post-assessment return is, in fact, a ‘return’ for purposes of dischargeability considerations under clause (i) of § 523(a)(1)(B)”); cf. In re Casano, 473 B.R. 504, 507 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.2012) (declining to apply Beard test because the one-day-late rule meant that late tax filings could never be returns, and therefore declining to apply any “applicable non-bankruptcy law” at all)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "473 B.R. 504, 507",
"parenthetical": "declining to apply Beard test because the one-day-late rule meant that late tax filings could never be returns, and therefore declining to apply any \"applicable non-bankruptcy law\" at all",
"sentence": "See, e.g., In re Martin, 500 B.R. 1, 8 (D.Colo.2013) aff'd sub nom. In re Mallo, 774 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir.2014) (holding that the Beard test “constituted the ‘applicable nonbankruptcy law1 — pursuant to the first sentence of the hanging paragraph provided by the BAPCPA — for purposes of determining whether a filing is a ‘return’ under § 523(a)(l)(B)(i)”); In re Rhodes, 498 B.R. 357, 367 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2013). (applying Beard test “to determine whether a later filed, post-assessment return is, in fact, a ‘return’ for purposes of dischargeability considerations under clause (i) of § 523(a)(1)(B)”); cf. In re Casano, 473 B.R. 504, 507 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.2012) (declining to apply Beard test because the one-day-late rule meant that late tax filings could never be returns, and therefore declining to apply any “applicable non-bankruptcy law” at all)."
} | 6,812,077 | a |
. Plaintiffs have suggested that KRS 454.210(2)(a) 1.-2 may establish personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Their reasoning apparently is that operating or deriving revenue through independent distributors can establish minimum contacts with the forum. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "572 F.2d 119, 120-21",
"parenthetical": "nonresident programmer could anticipate that allegedly infringing game show might be broadcast by distributor in forum",
"sentence": "See Payne v. Kristofferson, 631 F.Supp. 39, 43 (N.D.Ga.1985) (nonresident's licensing arrangement with national distributor of allegedly infringing song books sufficient to establish minimum contacts with forum); See also Edy Clover Productions, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 572 F.2d 119, 120-21 (3rd Cir.1978) (nonresident programmer could anticipate that allegedly infringing game show might be broadcast by distributor in forum). However, even if such arrangements constituted “transacting any business” or \"contracting to supply goods or services” in Kentucky under the long-arm statute, Plaintiffs tort claims still would not \"arise from” these contacts."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "631 F.Supp. 39, 43",
"parenthetical": "nonresident's licensing arrangement with national distributor of allegedly infringing song books sufficient to establish minimum contacts with forum",
"sentence": "See Payne v. Kristofferson, 631 F.Supp. 39, 43 (N.D.Ga.1985) (nonresident's licensing arrangement with national distributor of allegedly infringing song books sufficient to establish minimum contacts with forum); See also Edy Clover Productions, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 572 F.2d 119, 120-21 (3rd Cir.1978) (nonresident programmer could anticipate that allegedly infringing game show might be broadcast by distributor in forum). However, even if such arrangements constituted “transacting any business” or \"contracting to supply goods or services” in Kentucky under the long-arm statute, Plaintiffs tort claims still would not \"arise from” these contacts."
} | 208,435 | b |
Here, both of the claims at issue-- for violations of Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights to be free from (1) arrest without probable cause, and (2) malicious prosecution--turn on whether Defendants had probable cause. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "780 F.3d 1007, 1007",
"parenthetical": "qualified immunity analysis turned on \"whether extant clearly established law [at the time of the events at issue] would have placed a reasonable, similarly situated police officer on notice that no probable cause existed\"",
"sentence": "See Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472, 1476 (10th Cir. 1995) (“A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant if he has probable cause to believe that person committed a crime.”); Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790, 799 (10th Cir. 2008) (to succeed on a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must show that “no probable cause supported the original arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution”). Because Garcia I concluded that “Plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to support his claim that his arrest was without probable cause,” 551 Fed.Appx. at 467, as Defendants recognize, the only remaining issue in the qualified-immunity analysis is whether, in March 2009, Defendants lacked probable cause under clearly established law to arrest and prosecute Plaintiff, see Callahan, 806 F.3d at 1027; see also Quinn, 780 F.3d at 1007 (qualified immunity analysis turned on “whether extant clearly established law [at the time of the events at issue] would have placed a reasonable, similarly situated police officer on notice that no probable cause existed”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "45 F.3d 1472, 1476",
"parenthetical": "\"A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant if he has probable cause to believe that person committed a crime.\"",
"sentence": "See Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472, 1476 (10th Cir. 1995) (“A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant if he has probable cause to believe that person committed a crime.”); Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790, 799 (10th Cir. 2008) (to succeed on a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must show that “no probable cause supported the original arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution”). Because Garcia I concluded that “Plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to support his claim that his arrest was without probable cause,” 551 Fed.Appx. at 467, as Defendants recognize, the only remaining issue in the qualified-immunity analysis is whether, in March 2009, Defendants lacked probable cause under clearly established law to arrest and prosecute Plaintiff, see Callahan, 806 F.3d at 1027; see also Quinn, 780 F.3d at 1007 (qualified immunity analysis turned on “whether extant clearly established law [at the time of the events at issue] would have placed a reasonable, similarly situated police officer on notice that no probable cause existed”)."
} | 12,397,647 | b |
Here, both of the claims at issue-- for violations of Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights to be free from (1) arrest without probable cause, and (2) malicious prosecution--turn on whether Defendants had probable cause. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "780 F.3d 1007, 1007",
"parenthetical": "qualified immunity analysis turned on \"whether extant clearly established law [at the time of the events at issue] would have placed a reasonable, similarly situated police officer on notice that no probable cause existed\"",
"sentence": "See Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472, 1476 (10th Cir. 1995) (“A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant if he has probable cause to believe that person committed a crime.”); Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790, 799 (10th Cir. 2008) (to succeed on a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must show that “no probable cause supported the original arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution”). Because Garcia I concluded that “Plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to support his claim that his arrest was without probable cause,” 551 Fed.Appx. at 467, as Defendants recognize, the only remaining issue in the qualified-immunity analysis is whether, in March 2009, Defendants lacked probable cause under clearly established law to arrest and prosecute Plaintiff, see Callahan, 806 F.3d at 1027; see also Quinn, 780 F.3d at 1007 (qualified immunity analysis turned on “whether extant clearly established law [at the time of the events at issue] would have placed a reasonable, similarly situated police officer on notice that no probable cause existed”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "528 F.3d 790, 799",
"parenthetical": "to succeed on a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must show that \"no probable cause supported the original arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution\"",
"sentence": "See Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472, 1476 (10th Cir. 1995) (“A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant if he has probable cause to believe that person committed a crime.”); Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790, 799 (10th Cir. 2008) (to succeed on a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must show that “no probable cause supported the original arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution”). Because Garcia I concluded that “Plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to support his claim that his arrest was without probable cause,” 551 Fed.Appx. at 467, as Defendants recognize, the only remaining issue in the qualified-immunity analysis is whether, in March 2009, Defendants lacked probable cause under clearly established law to arrest and prosecute Plaintiff, see Callahan, 806 F.3d at 1027; see also Quinn, 780 F.3d at 1007 (qualified immunity analysis turned on “whether extant clearly established law [at the time of the events at issue] would have placed a reasonable, similarly situated police officer on notice that no probable cause existed”)."
} | 12,397,647 | b |
Here, both of the claims at issue-- for violations of Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights to be free from (1) arrest without probable cause, and (2) malicious prosecution--turn on whether Defendants had probable cause. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "780 F.3d 1007, 1007",
"parenthetical": "qualified immunity analysis turned on \"whether extant clearly established law [at the time of the events at issue] would have placed a reasonable, similarly situated police officer on notice that no probable cause existed\"",
"sentence": "See Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472, 1476 (10th Cir. 1995) (“A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant if he has probable cause to believe that person committed a crime.”); Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790, 799 (10th Cir. 2008) (to succeed on a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must show that “no probable cause supported the original arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution”). Because Garcia I concluded that “Plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to support his claim that his arrest was without probable cause,” 551 Fed.Appx. at 467, as Defendants recognize, the only remaining issue in the qualified-immunity analysis is whether, in March 2009, Defendants lacked probable cause under clearly established law to arrest and prosecute Plaintiff, see Callahan, 806 F.3d at 1027; see also Quinn, 780 F.3d at 1007 (qualified immunity analysis turned on “whether extant clearly established law [at the time of the events at issue] would have placed a reasonable, similarly situated police officer on notice that no probable cause existed”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "551 Fed.Appx. 467, 467",
"parenthetical": "to succeed on a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must show that \"no probable cause supported the original arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution\"",
"sentence": "See Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472, 1476 (10th Cir. 1995) (“A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant if he has probable cause to believe that person committed a crime.”); Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790, 799 (10th Cir. 2008) (to succeed on a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must show that “no probable cause supported the original arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution”). Because Garcia I concluded that “Plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to support his claim that his arrest was without probable cause,” 551 Fed.Appx. at 467, as Defendants recognize, the only remaining issue in the qualified-immunity analysis is whether, in March 2009, Defendants lacked probable cause under clearly established law to arrest and prosecute Plaintiff, see Callahan, 806 F.3d at 1027; see also Quinn, 780 F.3d at 1007 (qualified immunity analysis turned on “whether extant clearly established law [at the time of the events at issue] would have placed a reasonable, similarly situated police officer on notice that no probable cause existed”)."
} | 12,397,647 | b |
Here, both of the claims at issue-- for violations of Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights to be free from (1) arrest without probable cause, and (2) malicious prosecution--turn on whether Defendants had probable cause. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "780 F.3d 1007, 1007",
"parenthetical": "qualified immunity analysis turned on \"whether extant clearly established law [at the time of the events at issue] would have placed a reasonable, similarly situated police officer on notice that no probable cause existed\"",
"sentence": "See Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472, 1476 (10th Cir. 1995) (“A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant if he has probable cause to believe that person committed a crime.”); Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790, 799 (10th Cir. 2008) (to succeed on a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must show that “no probable cause supported the original arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution”). Because Garcia I concluded that “Plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to support his claim that his arrest was without probable cause,” 551 Fed.Appx. at 467, as Defendants recognize, the only remaining issue in the qualified-immunity analysis is whether, in March 2009, Defendants lacked probable cause under clearly established law to arrest and prosecute Plaintiff, see Callahan, 806 F.3d at 1027; see also Quinn, 780 F.3d at 1007 (qualified immunity analysis turned on “whether extant clearly established law [at the time of the events at issue] would have placed a reasonable, similarly situated police officer on notice that no probable cause existed”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "806 F.3d 1027, 1027",
"parenthetical": "to succeed on a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must show that \"no probable cause supported the original arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution\"",
"sentence": "See Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472, 1476 (10th Cir. 1995) (“A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant if he has probable cause to believe that person committed a crime.”); Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790, 799 (10th Cir. 2008) (to succeed on a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must show that “no probable cause supported the original arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution”). Because Garcia I concluded that “Plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to support his claim that his arrest was without probable cause,” 551 Fed.Appx. at 467, as Defendants recognize, the only remaining issue in the qualified-immunity analysis is whether, in March 2009, Defendants lacked probable cause under clearly established law to arrest and prosecute Plaintiff, see Callahan, 806 F.3d at 1027; see also Quinn, 780 F.3d at 1007 (qualified immunity analysis turned on “whether extant clearly established law [at the time of the events at issue] would have placed a reasonable, similarly situated police officer on notice that no probable cause existed”)."
} | 12,397,647 | b |
Although neither the parties nor this Court has identified any circuit court of appeals precedent on this precise issue, several bankruptcy courts have rejected Musolino's argument. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "295 B.R. 562, 567-68",
"parenthetical": "declining to extend holding in Craft, holding that under Maryland law property held in tenancy by entireties estate is validly exempt from bankruptcy creditors of one spouse under SS 522(b",
"sentence": "See In re Great-house, 295 B.R. 562, 567-68 (Bankr.D.Md.2003) (declining to extend holding in Craft, holding that under Maryland law property held in tenancy by entireties estate is validly exempt from bankruptcy creditors of one spouse under § 522(b)(2)(B)); In re Kelly, 289 B.R. 38, 45 (Bankr.D.Del.2003) (concluding that Craft is inapplicable, holding that “[ujnder Delaware law and [§ 522(b)(2)(B) ], property held in an entireties estate is validly exempt and may not be reached by the creditors of one spouse”); see also Schlossberg v. Barney, 380 F.3d 174, 182 (4th Cir.2004) (declining to extend Craft, holding that Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee proceeding pursuant to § 544 of the Bankruptcy Code cannot stand in shoes of the IRS in a tax collection context in order to reach property held in tenancy by the entireties exempted under § 522(b)(2)(B)); In re Ryan, 282 B.R. 742, 750 (2002) (noting that “Craft gives no indication that the reasoning therein should be extended beyond federal tax law”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "380 F.3d 174, 182",
"parenthetical": "declining to extend Craft, holding that Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee proceeding pursuant to SS 544 of the Bankruptcy Code cannot stand in shoes of the IRS in a tax collection context in order to reach property held in tenancy by the entireties exempted under SS 522(b",
"sentence": "See In re Great-house, 295 B.R. 562, 567-68 (Bankr.D.Md.2003) (declining to extend holding in Craft, holding that under Maryland law property held in tenancy by entireties estate is validly exempt from bankruptcy creditors of one spouse under § 522(b)(2)(B)); In re Kelly, 289 B.R. 38, 45 (Bankr.D.Del.2003) (concluding that Craft is inapplicable, holding that “[ujnder Delaware law and [§ 522(b)(2)(B) ], property held in an entireties estate is validly exempt and may not be reached by the creditors of one spouse”); see also Schlossberg v. Barney, 380 F.3d 174, 182 (4th Cir.2004) (declining to extend Craft, holding that Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee proceeding pursuant to § 544 of the Bankruptcy Code cannot stand in shoes of the IRS in a tax collection context in order to reach property held in tenancy by the entireties exempted under § 522(b)(2)(B)); In re Ryan, 282 B.R. 742, 750 (2002) (noting that “Craft gives no indication that the reasoning therein should be extended beyond federal tax law”)."
} | 9,144,981 | a |
Although neither the parties nor this Court has identified any circuit court of appeals precedent on this precise issue, several bankruptcy courts have rejected Musolino's argument. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "282 B.R. 742, 750",
"parenthetical": "noting that \"Craft gives no indication that the reasoning therein should be extended beyond federal tax law\"",
"sentence": "See In re Great-house, 295 B.R. 562, 567-68 (Bankr.D.Md.2003) (declining to extend holding in Craft, holding that under Maryland law property held in tenancy by entireties estate is validly exempt from bankruptcy creditors of one spouse under § 522(b)(2)(B)); In re Kelly, 289 B.R. 38, 45 (Bankr.D.Del.2003) (concluding that Craft is inapplicable, holding that “[ujnder Delaware law and [§ 522(b)(2)(B) ], property held in an entireties estate is validly exempt and may not be reached by the creditors of one spouse”); see also Schlossberg v. Barney, 380 F.3d 174, 182 (4th Cir.2004) (declining to extend Craft, holding that Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee proceeding pursuant to § 544 of the Bankruptcy Code cannot stand in shoes of the IRS in a tax collection context in order to reach property held in tenancy by the entireties exempted under § 522(b)(2)(B)); In re Ryan, 282 B.R. 742, 750 (2002) (noting that “Craft gives no indication that the reasoning therein should be extended beyond federal tax law”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "295 B.R. 562, 567-68",
"parenthetical": "declining to extend holding in Craft, holding that under Maryland law property held in tenancy by entireties estate is validly exempt from bankruptcy creditors of one spouse under SS 522(b",
"sentence": "See In re Great-house, 295 B.R. 562, 567-68 (Bankr.D.Md.2003) (declining to extend holding in Craft, holding that under Maryland law property held in tenancy by entireties estate is validly exempt from bankruptcy creditors of one spouse under § 522(b)(2)(B)); In re Kelly, 289 B.R. 38, 45 (Bankr.D.Del.2003) (concluding that Craft is inapplicable, holding that “[ujnder Delaware law and [§ 522(b)(2)(B) ], property held in an entireties estate is validly exempt and may not be reached by the creditors of one spouse”); see also Schlossberg v. Barney, 380 F.3d 174, 182 (4th Cir.2004) (declining to extend Craft, holding that Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee proceeding pursuant to § 544 of the Bankruptcy Code cannot stand in shoes of the IRS in a tax collection context in order to reach property held in tenancy by the entireties exempted under § 522(b)(2)(B)); In re Ryan, 282 B.R. 742, 750 (2002) (noting that “Craft gives no indication that the reasoning therein should be extended beyond federal tax law”)."
} | 9,144,981 | b |
Although neither the parties nor this Court has identified any circuit court of appeals precedent on this precise issue, several bankruptcy courts have rejected Musolino's argument. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "380 F.3d 174, 182",
"parenthetical": "declining to extend Craft, holding that Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee proceeding pursuant to SS 544 of the Bankruptcy Code cannot stand in shoes of the IRS in a tax collection context in order to reach property held in tenancy by the entireties exempted under SS 522(b",
"sentence": "See In re Great-house, 295 B.R. 562, 567-68 (Bankr.D.Md.2003) (declining to extend holding in Craft, holding that under Maryland law property held in tenancy by entireties estate is validly exempt from bankruptcy creditors of one spouse under § 522(b)(2)(B)); In re Kelly, 289 B.R. 38, 45 (Bankr.D.Del.2003) (concluding that Craft is inapplicable, holding that “[ujnder Delaware law and [§ 522(b)(2)(B) ], property held in an entireties estate is validly exempt and may not be reached by the creditors of one spouse”); see also Schlossberg v. Barney, 380 F.3d 174, 182 (4th Cir.2004) (declining to extend Craft, holding that Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee proceeding pursuant to § 544 of the Bankruptcy Code cannot stand in shoes of the IRS in a tax collection context in order to reach property held in tenancy by the entireties exempted under § 522(b)(2)(B)); In re Ryan, 282 B.R. 742, 750 (2002) (noting that “Craft gives no indication that the reasoning therein should be extended beyond federal tax law”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "289 B.R. 38, 45",
"parenthetical": "concluding that Craft is inapplicable, holding that \"[ujnder Delaware law and [SS 522(b",
"sentence": "See In re Great-house, 295 B.R. 562, 567-68 (Bankr.D.Md.2003) (declining to extend holding in Craft, holding that under Maryland law property held in tenancy by entireties estate is validly exempt from bankruptcy creditors of one spouse under § 522(b)(2)(B)); In re Kelly, 289 B.R. 38, 45 (Bankr.D.Del.2003) (concluding that Craft is inapplicable, holding that “[ujnder Delaware law and [§ 522(b)(2)(B) ], property held in an entireties estate is validly exempt and may not be reached by the creditors of one spouse”); see also Schlossberg v. Barney, 380 F.3d 174, 182 (4th Cir.2004) (declining to extend Craft, holding that Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee proceeding pursuant to § 544 of the Bankruptcy Code cannot stand in shoes of the IRS in a tax collection context in order to reach property held in tenancy by the entireties exempted under § 522(b)(2)(B)); In re Ryan, 282 B.R. 742, 750 (2002) (noting that “Craft gives no indication that the reasoning therein should be extended beyond federal tax law”)."
} | 9,144,981 | b |
Although neither the parties nor this Court has identified any circuit court of appeals precedent on this precise issue, several bankruptcy courts have rejected Musolino's argument. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "289 B.R. 38, 45",
"parenthetical": "concluding that Craft is inapplicable, holding that \"[ujnder Delaware law and [SS 522(b",
"sentence": "See In re Great-house, 295 B.R. 562, 567-68 (Bankr.D.Md.2003) (declining to extend holding in Craft, holding that under Maryland law property held in tenancy by entireties estate is validly exempt from bankruptcy creditors of one spouse under § 522(b)(2)(B)); In re Kelly, 289 B.R. 38, 45 (Bankr.D.Del.2003) (concluding that Craft is inapplicable, holding that “[ujnder Delaware law and [§ 522(b)(2)(B) ], property held in an entireties estate is validly exempt and may not be reached by the creditors of one spouse”); see also Schlossberg v. Barney, 380 F.3d 174, 182 (4th Cir.2004) (declining to extend Craft, holding that Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee proceeding pursuant to § 544 of the Bankruptcy Code cannot stand in shoes of the IRS in a tax collection context in order to reach property held in tenancy by the entireties exempted under § 522(b)(2)(B)); In re Ryan, 282 B.R. 742, 750 (2002) (noting that “Craft gives no indication that the reasoning therein should be extended beyond federal tax law”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "282 B.R. 742, 750",
"parenthetical": "noting that \"Craft gives no indication that the reasoning therein should be extended beyond federal tax law\"",
"sentence": "See In re Great-house, 295 B.R. 562, 567-68 (Bankr.D.Md.2003) (declining to extend holding in Craft, holding that under Maryland law property held in tenancy by entireties estate is validly exempt from bankruptcy creditors of one spouse under § 522(b)(2)(B)); In re Kelly, 289 B.R. 38, 45 (Bankr.D.Del.2003) (concluding that Craft is inapplicable, holding that “[ujnder Delaware law and [§ 522(b)(2)(B) ], property held in an entireties estate is validly exempt and may not be reached by the creditors of one spouse”); see also Schlossberg v. Barney, 380 F.3d 174, 182 (4th Cir.2004) (declining to extend Craft, holding that Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee proceeding pursuant to § 544 of the Bankruptcy Code cannot stand in shoes of the IRS in a tax collection context in order to reach property held in tenancy by the entireties exempted under § 522(b)(2)(B)); In re Ryan, 282 B.R. 742, 750 (2002) (noting that “Craft gives no indication that the reasoning therein should be extended beyond federal tax law”)."
} | 9,144,981 | a |
The district court properly granted summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds on the deliberate indifference claim because Patrick failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendant, a correctional officer, informed other in mates that Patrick was a snitch or sent an inmate to attack Patrick. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "a conclusory affidavit unsupported by facts is insufficient to raise a triable issue",
"sentence": "See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834-37, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (discussing deliberate indifference standard); Rodriguez v. Maricopa County Cmty. College Dist., 605 F.3d 703, 711 (9th Cir.2010) (a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if there is no constitutional violation); see also Nilsson v. City of Mesa, 503 F.3d 947, 952 n. 2 (9th Cir.2007) (a conclusory affidavit unsupported by facts is insufficient to raise a triable issue)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "605 F.3d 703, 711",
"parenthetical": "a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if there is no constitutional violation",
"sentence": "See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834-37, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (discussing deliberate indifference standard); Rodriguez v. Maricopa County Cmty. College Dist., 605 F.3d 703, 711 (9th Cir.2010) (a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if there is no constitutional violation); see also Nilsson v. City of Mesa, 503 F.3d 947, 952 n. 2 (9th Cir.2007) (a conclusory affidavit unsupported by facts is insufficient to raise a triable issue)."
} | 4,075,866 | b |
Under this interpretation, bankruptcy courts will continue to have some discretion over the calculations of each individual debtor's financial situation, with the result that the debtor's "projected disposable income" will end up more closely aligning with reality. This interpretation also comports with the congressional intent that above-median debtors pay the maximum they can afford and results in making workable the application of 11 U.S.C. SS 1325(b)(1)(B) for above-median debtors who have positive "disposable income," as well as for above-median debtors with negative "disposable income." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "338 B.R. 723, 723",
"parenthetical": "Congress must have intended \"disposable income\" to be something different than \"projected disposable income\" or it would have used the same language in both places in the statute",
"sentence": "See Gonzalez, 388 B.R. at 304-05, 308-09 (rigid adherence to a debtor’s historical income would produce results inconsistent with the congressional purpose of BAPC-PA and inconsistent with common sense); see also Hardacre, 338 B.R. at 723 (Congress must have intended “disposable income” to be something different than “projected disposable income” or it would have used the same language in both places in the statute)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "388 B.R. 304, 304-05, 308-09",
"parenthetical": "rigid adherence to a debtor's historical income would produce results inconsistent with the congressional purpose of BAPC-PA and inconsistent with common sense",
"sentence": "See Gonzalez, 388 B.R. at 304-05, 308-09 (rigid adherence to a debtor’s historical income would produce results inconsistent with the congressional purpose of BAPC-PA and inconsistent with common sense); see also Hardacre, 338 B.R. at 723 (Congress must have intended “disposable income” to be something different than “projected disposable income” or it would have used the same language in both places in the statute)."
} | 3,860,192 | b |
While the court did not discuss the debtors' chances of obtaining a successful reorganization, such a finding was encompassed by, and implicit in, the court's focus on protecting the debtors' reorganization efforts. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "502 F.3d 1097, 1097",
"parenthetical": "stating that it is not a high burden to show reasonable likelihood of success in reorganization, but a bankruptcy court must consider the issue before granting an injunction",
"sentence": "See Eagle-Picher, 963 F.2d at 860 (“In view of the bankruptcy court’s protection of Eagle-Picher’s [the debtor] reorganization efforts, it is implicit in its decision that it believed Eagle-Picher had some realistic possibility of successfully reorganizing under Chapter 11.”); but see Excel Innovations, 502 F.3d at 1097 (stating that it is not a high burden to show reasonable likelihood of success in reorganization, but a bankruptcy court must consider the issue before granting an injunction). The Sixth Circuit in Eagle-Picher acknowledged such an implicit finding, stating that the debtor’s bankruptcy petition had been before the court “for over a month” and the court was “thoroughly familiar” with the reorganization plan."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "963 F.2d 860, 860",
"parenthetical": "\"In view of the bankruptcy court's protection of Eagle-Picher's [the debtor] reorganization efforts, it is implicit in its decision that it believed Eagle-Picher had some realistic possibility of successfully reorganizing under Chapter 11.\"",
"sentence": "See Eagle-Picher, 963 F.2d at 860 (“In view of the bankruptcy court’s protection of Eagle-Picher’s [the debtor] reorganization efforts, it is implicit in its decision that it believed Eagle-Picher had some realistic possibility of successfully reorganizing under Chapter 11.”); but see Excel Innovations, 502 F.3d at 1097 (stating that it is not a high burden to show reasonable likelihood of success in reorganization, but a bankruptcy court must consider the issue before granting an injunction). The Sixth Circuit in Eagle-Picher acknowledged such an implicit finding, stating that the debtor’s bankruptcy petition had been before the court “for over a month” and the court was “thoroughly familiar” with the reorganization plan."
} | 4,167,333 | b |
Although the two paragraphs cobble together a few details, they fail to give even one date on which an alleged misrepresentation occurred. That alone dooms ABI's ability to allege fraud with particularity. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "501 F.3d 493, 504-05",
"parenthetical": "holding that pleading was insufficient where the plaintiff failed to, among other things, set forth the dates of any fraudulent statements",
"sentence": "See Heinrich, 668 F.3d at 393 (finding that a plaintiff failed to allege fraud with sufficient particularity because she “d[id] not include [in her affidavit] the date she received the allegedly fraudulent email from the defendants.”); see also United States ex rel. Bledsoe v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 501 F.3d 493, 504-05 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that pleading was insufficient where the plaintiff failed to, among other things, set forth the dates of any fraudulent statements); United States ex rel. Hirt v. Walgreen Co., 846 F.3d 879, 881 (6th Cir. 2017) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "668 F.3d 393, 393",
"parenthetical": "finding that a plaintiff failed to allege fraud with sufficient particularity because she \"d[id] not include [in her affidavit] the date she received the allegedly fraudulent email from the defendants.\"",
"sentence": "See Heinrich, 668 F.3d at 393 (finding that a plaintiff failed to allege fraud with sufficient particularity because she “d[id] not include [in her affidavit] the date she received the allegedly fraudulent email from the defendants.”); see also United States ex rel. Bledsoe v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 501 F.3d 493, 504-05 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that pleading was insufficient where the plaintiff failed to, among other things, set forth the dates of any fraudulent statements); United States ex rel. Hirt v. Walgreen Co., 846 F.3d 879, 881 (6th Cir. 2017) (same)."
} | 12,404,957 | b |
See Hudson v. MCI Telecom. Plaintiff bore the initial burden of initiating an interactive process with OAS by proposing an accommodation and showing that the accommodation was objectively reasonable. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "180 F.3d 1171, 1171",
"parenthetical": "interactive process begins by an employee expressing a desire for reassignment if no reasonable accommodation is possible in his existing job",
"sentence": "See Woodman, 132 F.3d at 1344 (initial burden is on the employee to suggest a “plausible accommodation”); see also Midland Brake, 180 F.3d at 1171 (interactive process begins by an employee expressing a desire for reassignment if no reasonable accommodation is possible in his existing job)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "132 F.3d 1344, 1344",
"parenthetical": "initial burden is on the employee to suggest a \"plausible accommodation\"",
"sentence": "See Woodman, 132 F.3d at 1344 (initial burden is on the employee to suggest a “plausible accommodation”); see also Midland Brake, 180 F.3d at 1171 (interactive process begins by an employee expressing a desire for reassignment if no reasonable accommodation is possible in his existing job)."
} | 11,231,023 | b |
The Naranjos assert that reasonable reliance may constitute good cause, but have failed to demonstrate that their reliance was reasonable. In our view, it is not reasonable to rely on an opposing attorney's representation or statement of the law when both attorneys have readily accessible means to read, interpret, and apply it. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "144 Idaho 257, 257-58",
"parenthetical": "no good cause when service was late because one attorney accepted in good faith that the other attorney would remind him to serve process",
"sentence": "See Campbell, 144 Idaho at 257-58, 159 P.3d at 894-95 (no good cause when service was late because one attorney accepted in good faith that the other attorney would remind him to serve process); Regjovich v. First Western Investments, Inc., 134 Idaho 154, 157-58, 997 P.2d 615, 618-19 (2000) (denying claim of equitable estoppel because party had readily accessible means to discover the truth, and finding no good cause on other grounds)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "84 Fed.Appx. 253, 255-56",
"parenthetical": "reliance upon the clerk's advice did not constitute good cause because clerk's office has no duty to provide step-by-step guidance",
"sentence": "Cf. Veal v. United States, 84 Fed.Appx. 253, 255-56 (3d Cir.2004) (reliance upon the clerk’s advice did not constitute good cause because clerk’s office has no duty to provide step-by-step guidance)."
} | 4,080,697 | a |
The Naranjos assert that reasonable reliance may constitute good cause, but have failed to demonstrate that their reliance was reasonable. In our view, it is not reasonable to rely on an opposing attorney's representation or statement of the law when both attorneys have readily accessible means to read, interpret, and apply it. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "159 P.3d 894, 894-95",
"parenthetical": "no good cause when service was late because one attorney accepted in good faith that the other attorney would remind him to serve process",
"sentence": "See Campbell, 144 Idaho at 257-58, 159 P.3d at 894-95 (no good cause when service was late because one attorney accepted in good faith that the other attorney would remind him to serve process); Regjovich v. First Western Investments, Inc., 134 Idaho 154, 157-58, 997 P.2d 615, 618-19 (2000) (denying claim of equitable estoppel because party had readily accessible means to discover the truth, and finding no good cause on other grounds)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "84 Fed.Appx. 253, 255-56",
"parenthetical": "reliance upon the clerk's advice did not constitute good cause because clerk's office has no duty to provide step-by-step guidance",
"sentence": "Cf. Veal v. United States, 84 Fed.Appx. 253, 255-56 (3d Cir.2004) (reliance upon the clerk’s advice did not constitute good cause because clerk’s office has no duty to provide step-by-step guidance)."
} | 4,080,697 | a |
The Naranjos assert that reasonable reliance may constitute good cause, but have failed to demonstrate that their reliance was reasonable. In our view, it is not reasonable to rely on an opposing attorney's representation or statement of the law when both attorneys have readily accessible means to read, interpret, and apply it. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "134 Idaho 154, 157-58",
"parenthetical": "denying claim of equitable estoppel because party had readily accessible means to discover the truth, and finding no good cause on other grounds",
"sentence": "See Campbell, 144 Idaho at 257-58, 159 P.3d at 894-95 (no good cause when service was late because one attorney accepted in good faith that the other attorney would remind him to serve process); Regjovich v. First Western Investments, Inc., 134 Idaho 154, 157-58, 997 P.2d 615, 618-19 (2000) (denying claim of equitable estoppel because party had readily accessible means to discover the truth, and finding no good cause on other grounds)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "84 Fed.Appx. 253, 255-56",
"parenthetical": "reliance upon the clerk's advice did not constitute good cause because clerk's office has no duty to provide step-by-step guidance",
"sentence": "Cf. Veal v. United States, 84 Fed.Appx. 253, 255-56 (3d Cir.2004) (reliance upon the clerk’s advice did not constitute good cause because clerk’s office has no duty to provide step-by-step guidance)."
} | 4,080,697 | a |
The Naranjos assert that reasonable reliance may constitute good cause, but have failed to demonstrate that their reliance was reasonable. In our view, it is not reasonable to rely on an opposing attorney's representation or statement of the law when both attorneys have readily accessible means to read, interpret, and apply it. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "84 Fed.Appx. 253, 255-56",
"parenthetical": "reliance upon the clerk's advice did not constitute good cause because clerk's office has no duty to provide step-by-step guidance",
"sentence": "Cf. Veal v. United States, 84 Fed.Appx. 253, 255-56 (3d Cir.2004) (reliance upon the clerk’s advice did not constitute good cause because clerk’s office has no duty to provide step-by-step guidance)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "997 P.2d 615, 618-19",
"parenthetical": "denying claim of equitable estoppel because party had readily accessible means to discover the truth, and finding no good cause on other grounds",
"sentence": "See Campbell, 144 Idaho at 257-58, 159 P.3d at 894-95 (no good cause when service was late because one attorney accepted in good faith that the other attorney would remind him to serve process); Regjovich v. First Western Investments, Inc., 134 Idaho 154, 157-58, 997 P.2d 615, 618-19 (2000) (denying claim of equitable estoppel because party had readily accessible means to discover the truth, and finding no good cause on other grounds)."
} | 4,080,697 | b |
Ignoring the appellate waiver, we are still left with Mr. Coates's agreement stipulating to a twenty-year sentence. In light of this plea agreement, we hold that Mr. Coates's sentencing challenges necessarily must fail because any error by the district court in setting the length of the sentence at twenty years was invited. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "505 F.3d 1054, 1055",
"parenthetical": "\"[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Mancera-Perez, 505 F.3d 1054, 1055 (10th Cir.2007) (“[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.”); see also United States v. Grillo, 431 Fed. Appx. 677, 680 (10th Cir.2011) (“[The appellant] received a sentence within the range she requested, so she has waived her argument that her sentence was substantively unreasonable.”); United States v. Perez-Cruz, 404 Fed.Appx. 255, 257 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that because, at sentencing, the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable, “the argument [he] seeks to make was waived”), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1831, 179 L.Ed.2d 786 (2011); United States v. Ramos-Lopez, 390 Fed. Appx. 833, 836 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that by requesting a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, “[i]t is clear ... that [the appellant] waived any argument that he was entitled to a below-guideline sentence”); United States v. Tafolla-Zavala, 362 Fed.Appx. 895, 897 (10th Cir.2010) (“Any error as to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence was waived when counsel indicated agreement with the sentence to be imposed.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "431 Fed. Appx. 677, 680",
"parenthetical": "\"[The appellant] received a sentence within the range she requested, so she has waived her argument that her sentence was substantively unreasonable.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Mancera-Perez, 505 F.3d 1054, 1055 (10th Cir.2007) (“[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.”); see also United States v. Grillo, 431 Fed. Appx. 677, 680 (10th Cir.2011) (“[The appellant] received a sentence within the range she requested, so she has waived her argument that her sentence was substantively unreasonable.”); United States v. Perez-Cruz, 404 Fed.Appx. 255, 257 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that because, at sentencing, the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable, “the argument [he] seeks to make was waived”), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1831, 179 L.Ed.2d 786 (2011); United States v. Ramos-Lopez, 390 Fed. Appx. 833, 836 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that by requesting a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, “[i]t is clear ... that [the appellant] waived any argument that he was entitled to a below-guideline sentence”); United States v. Tafolla-Zavala, 362 Fed.Appx. 895, 897 (10th Cir.2010) (“Any error as to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence was waived when counsel indicated agreement with the sentence to be imposed.”)."
} | 4,130,301 | a |
Ignoring the appellate waiver, we are still left with Mr. Coates's agreement stipulating to a twenty-year sentence. In light of this plea agreement, we hold that Mr. Coates's sentencing challenges necessarily must fail because any error by the district court in setting the length of the sentence at twenty years was invited. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "404 Fed.Appx. 255, 257",
"parenthetical": "holding that because, at sentencing, the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable, \"the argument [he] seeks to make was waived\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Mancera-Perez, 505 F.3d 1054, 1055 (10th Cir.2007) (“[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.”); see also United States v. Grillo, 431 Fed. Appx. 677, 680 (10th Cir.2011) (“[The appellant] received a sentence within the range she requested, so she has waived her argument that her sentence was substantively unreasonable.”); United States v. Perez-Cruz, 404 Fed.Appx. 255, 257 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that because, at sentencing, the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable, “the argument [he] seeks to make was waived”), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1831, 179 L.Ed.2d 786 (2011); United States v. Ramos-Lopez, 390 Fed. Appx. 833, 836 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that by requesting a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, “[i]t is clear ... that [the appellant] waived any argument that he was entitled to a below-guideline sentence”); United States v. Tafolla-Zavala, 362 Fed.Appx. 895, 897 (10th Cir.2010) (“Any error as to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence was waived when counsel indicated agreement with the sentence to be imposed.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "505 F.3d 1054, 1055",
"parenthetical": "\"[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Mancera-Perez, 505 F.3d 1054, 1055 (10th Cir.2007) (“[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.”); see also United States v. Grillo, 431 Fed. Appx. 677, 680 (10th Cir.2011) (“[The appellant] received a sentence within the range she requested, so she has waived her argument that her sentence was substantively unreasonable.”); United States v. Perez-Cruz, 404 Fed.Appx. 255, 257 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that because, at sentencing, the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable, “the argument [he] seeks to make was waived”), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1831, 179 L.Ed.2d 786 (2011); United States v. Ramos-Lopez, 390 Fed. Appx. 833, 836 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that by requesting a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, “[i]t is clear ... that [the appellant] waived any argument that he was entitled to a below-guideline sentence”); United States v. Tafolla-Zavala, 362 Fed.Appx. 895, 897 (10th Cir.2010) (“Any error as to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence was waived when counsel indicated agreement with the sentence to be imposed.”)."
} | 4,130,301 | b |
Ignoring the appellate waiver, we are still left with Mr. Coates's agreement stipulating to a twenty-year sentence. In light of this plea agreement, we hold that Mr. Coates's sentencing challenges necessarily must fail because any error by the district court in setting the length of the sentence at twenty years was invited. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that because, at sentencing, the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable, \"the argument [he] seeks to make was waived\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Mancera-Perez, 505 F.3d 1054, 1055 (10th Cir.2007) (“[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.”); see also United States v. Grillo, 431 Fed. Appx. 677, 680 (10th Cir.2011) (“[The appellant] received a sentence within the range she requested, so she has waived her argument that her sentence was substantively unreasonable.”); United States v. Perez-Cruz, 404 Fed.Appx. 255, 257 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that because, at sentencing, the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable, “the argument [he] seeks to make was waived”), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1831, 179 L.Ed.2d 786 (2011); United States v. Ramos-Lopez, 390 Fed. Appx. 833, 836 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that by requesting a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, “[i]t is clear ... that [the appellant] waived any argument that he was entitled to a below-guideline sentence”); United States v. Tafolla-Zavala, 362 Fed.Appx. 895, 897 (10th Cir.2010) (“Any error as to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence was waived when counsel indicated agreement with the sentence to be imposed.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "505 F.3d 1054, 1055",
"parenthetical": "\"[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Mancera-Perez, 505 F.3d 1054, 1055 (10th Cir.2007) (“[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.”); see also United States v. Grillo, 431 Fed. Appx. 677, 680 (10th Cir.2011) (“[The appellant] received a sentence within the range she requested, so she has waived her argument that her sentence was substantively unreasonable.”); United States v. Perez-Cruz, 404 Fed.Appx. 255, 257 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that because, at sentencing, the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable, “the argument [he] seeks to make was waived”), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1831, 179 L.Ed.2d 786 (2011); United States v. Ramos-Lopez, 390 Fed. Appx. 833, 836 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that by requesting a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, “[i]t is clear ... that [the appellant] waived any argument that he was entitled to a below-guideline sentence”); United States v. Tafolla-Zavala, 362 Fed.Appx. 895, 897 (10th Cir.2010) (“Any error as to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence was waived when counsel indicated agreement with the sentence to be imposed.”)."
} | 4,130,301 | b |
Ignoring the appellate waiver, we are still left with Mr. Coates's agreement stipulating to a twenty-year sentence. In light of this plea agreement, we hold that Mr. Coates's sentencing challenges necessarily must fail because any error by the district court in setting the length of the sentence at twenty years was invited. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that because, at sentencing, the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable, \"the argument [he] seeks to make was waived\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Mancera-Perez, 505 F.3d 1054, 1055 (10th Cir.2007) (“[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.”); see also United States v. Grillo, 431 Fed. Appx. 677, 680 (10th Cir.2011) (“[The appellant] received a sentence within the range she requested, so she has waived her argument that her sentence was substantively unreasonable.”); United States v. Perez-Cruz, 404 Fed.Appx. 255, 257 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that because, at sentencing, the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable, “the argument [he] seeks to make was waived”), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1831, 179 L.Ed.2d 786 (2011); United States v. Ramos-Lopez, 390 Fed. Appx. 833, 836 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that by requesting a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, “[i]t is clear ... that [the appellant] waived any argument that he was entitled to a below-guideline sentence”); United States v. Tafolla-Zavala, 362 Fed.Appx. 895, 897 (10th Cir.2010) (“Any error as to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence was waived when counsel indicated agreement with the sentence to be imposed.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "505 F.3d 1054, 1055",
"parenthetical": "\"[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Mancera-Perez, 505 F.3d 1054, 1055 (10th Cir.2007) (“[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.”); see also United States v. Grillo, 431 Fed. Appx. 677, 680 (10th Cir.2011) (“[The appellant] received a sentence within the range she requested, so she has waived her argument that her sentence was substantively unreasonable.”); United States v. Perez-Cruz, 404 Fed.Appx. 255, 257 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that because, at sentencing, the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable, “the argument [he] seeks to make was waived”), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1831, 179 L.Ed.2d 786 (2011); United States v. Ramos-Lopez, 390 Fed. Appx. 833, 836 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that by requesting a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, “[i]t is clear ... that [the appellant] waived any argument that he was entitled to a below-guideline sentence”); United States v. Tafolla-Zavala, 362 Fed.Appx. 895, 897 (10th Cir.2010) (“Any error as to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence was waived when counsel indicated agreement with the sentence to be imposed.”)."
} | 4,130,301 | b |
Ignoring the appellate waiver, we are still left with Mr. Coates's agreement stipulating to a twenty-year sentence. In light of this plea agreement, we hold that Mr. Coates's sentencing challenges necessarily must fail because any error by the district court in setting the length of the sentence at twenty years was invited. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "390 Fed. Appx. 833, 836",
"parenthetical": "holding that by requesting a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, \"[i]t is clear ... that [the appellant] waived any argument that he was entitled to a below-guideline sentence\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Mancera-Perez, 505 F.3d 1054, 1055 (10th Cir.2007) (“[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.”); see also United States v. Grillo, 431 Fed. Appx. 677, 680 (10th Cir.2011) (“[The appellant] received a sentence within the range she requested, so she has waived her argument that her sentence was substantively unreasonable.”); United States v. Perez-Cruz, 404 Fed.Appx. 255, 257 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that because, at sentencing, the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable, “the argument [he] seeks to make was waived”), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1831, 179 L.Ed.2d 786 (2011); United States v. Ramos-Lopez, 390 Fed. Appx. 833, 836 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that by requesting a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, “[i]t is clear ... that [the appellant] waived any argument that he was entitled to a below-guideline sentence”); United States v. Tafolla-Zavala, 362 Fed.Appx. 895, 897 (10th Cir.2010) (“Any error as to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence was waived when counsel indicated agreement with the sentence to be imposed.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "505 F.3d 1054, 1055",
"parenthetical": "\"[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Mancera-Perez, 505 F.3d 1054, 1055 (10th Cir.2007) (“[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.”); see also United States v. Grillo, 431 Fed. Appx. 677, 680 (10th Cir.2011) (“[The appellant] received a sentence within the range she requested, so she has waived her argument that her sentence was substantively unreasonable.”); United States v. Perez-Cruz, 404 Fed.Appx. 255, 257 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that because, at sentencing, the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable, “the argument [he] seeks to make was waived”), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1831, 179 L.Ed.2d 786 (2011); United States v. Ramos-Lopez, 390 Fed. Appx. 833, 836 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that by requesting a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, “[i]t is clear ... that [the appellant] waived any argument that he was entitled to a below-guideline sentence”); United States v. Tafolla-Zavala, 362 Fed.Appx. 895, 897 (10th Cir.2010) (“Any error as to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence was waived when counsel indicated agreement with the sentence to be imposed.”)."
} | 4,130,301 | b |
Ignoring the appellate waiver, we are still left with Mr. Coates's agreement stipulating to a twenty-year sentence. In light of this plea agreement, we hold that Mr. Coates's sentencing challenges necessarily must fail because any error by the district court in setting the length of the sentence at twenty years was invited. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "362 Fed.Appx. 895, 897",
"parenthetical": "\"Any error as to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence was waived when counsel indicated agreement with the sentence to be imposed.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Mancera-Perez, 505 F.3d 1054, 1055 (10th Cir.2007) (“[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.”); see also United States v. Grillo, 431 Fed. Appx. 677, 680 (10th Cir.2011) (“[The appellant] received a sentence within the range she requested, so she has waived her argument that her sentence was substantively unreasonable.”); United States v. Perez-Cruz, 404 Fed.Appx. 255, 257 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that because, at sentencing, the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable, “the argument [he] seeks to make was waived”), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1831, 179 L.Ed.2d 786 (2011); United States v. Ramos-Lopez, 390 Fed. Appx. 833, 836 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that by requesting a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, “[i]t is clear ... that [the appellant] waived any argument that he was entitled to a below-guideline sentence”); United States v. Tafolla-Zavala, 362 Fed.Appx. 895, 897 (10th Cir.2010) (“Any error as to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence was waived when counsel indicated agreement with the sentence to be imposed.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "505 F.3d 1054, 1055",
"parenthetical": "\"[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Mancera-Perez, 505 F.3d 1054, 1055 (10th Cir.2007) (“[H]e has invited any error regarding the length of his sentence ... and his claims [raised] now for the first time on appeal are waived.”); see also United States v. Grillo, 431 Fed. Appx. 677, 680 (10th Cir.2011) (“[The appellant] received a sentence within the range she requested, so she has waived her argument that her sentence was substantively unreasonable.”); United States v. Perez-Cruz, 404 Fed.Appx. 255, 257 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that because, at sentencing, the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable, “the argument [he] seeks to make was waived”), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1831, 179 L.Ed.2d 786 (2011); United States v. Ramos-Lopez, 390 Fed. Appx. 833, 836 (10th Cir.2010) (holding that by requesting a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, “[i]t is clear ... that [the appellant] waived any argument that he was entitled to a below-guideline sentence”); United States v. Tafolla-Zavala, 362 Fed.Appx. 895, 897 (10th Cir.2010) (“Any error as to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence was waived when counsel indicated agreement with the sentence to be imposed.”)."
} | 4,130,301 | b |
Relying on our case law, Snyder argues that an infamous crime is a felony, and therefore misdemeanor battery is not an infamous crime. Contrary to the State's assertions, this argument clearly is supported by the ease law. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "148 Ind. 409, 409",
"parenthetical": "holding \"that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime\"",
"sentence": "See Crum, 148 Ind. at 409, 47 N.E. at 835 (holding “that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime”); Taylor, 616 N.E.2d at 385 (holding that because “each of Taylor’s class D felony convictions was a felony which was punishable by imprisonment for a term of years[, e]ach was, therefore, an infamous crime” (citations omitted)); cf. Sutherlin v. Sutherlin, 27 Ind.App. 301, 61 N.E. 206, 206 (1901) (holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony). Compare Crampton, 193 Ind. at 557,139 N.E. at 362 (“It is obvious that a ‘sentence’ exceeding six months, without any indication as to where the imprisonment is to be, is not an apt designation of an infamous crime.”), and Wilson, 642 N.E.2d at 261 (“Inasmuch as Wilson might have been imprisoned for more than one year, his offense qualifies as an infamous crime.” (citation omitted)), with 1 Burns’ Ann. Ind. Stat. § 1866 (1914) (defining “felony” as a crime punishable “with death or imprisonment in the state prison”), and Ind.Code § 35-50-2-l(b) (1993) (defining “felony conviction” as a conviction for which a “convicted person might have been imprisoned for more than one (1) year”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony",
"sentence": "See Crum, 148 Ind. at 409, 47 N.E. at 835 (holding “that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime”); Taylor, 616 N.E.2d at 385 (holding that because “each of Taylor’s class D felony convictions was a felony which was punishable by imprisonment for a term of years[, e]ach was, therefore, an infamous crime” (citations omitted)); cf. Sutherlin v. Sutherlin, 27 Ind.App. 301, 61 N.E. 206, 206 (1901) (holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony). Compare Crampton, 193 Ind. at 557,139 N.E. at 362 (“It is obvious that a ‘sentence’ exceeding six months, without any indication as to where the imprisonment is to be, is not an apt designation of an infamous crime.”), and Wilson, 642 N.E.2d at 261 (“Inasmuch as Wilson might have been imprisoned for more than one year, his offense qualifies as an infamous crime.” (citation omitted)), with 1 Burns’ Ann. Ind. Stat. § 1866 (1914) (defining “felony” as a crime punishable “with death or imprisonment in the state prison”), and Ind.Code § 35-50-2-l(b) (1993) (defining “felony conviction” as a conviction for which a “convicted person might have been imprisoned for more than one (1) year”)."
} | 7,141,124 | a |
Relying on our case law, Snyder argues that an infamous crime is a felony, and therefore misdemeanor battery is not an infamous crime. Contrary to the State's assertions, this argument clearly is supported by the ease law. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "61 N.E. 206, 206",
"parenthetical": "holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony",
"sentence": "See Crum, 148 Ind. at 409, 47 N.E. at 835 (holding “that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime”); Taylor, 616 N.E.2d at 385 (holding that because “each of Taylor’s class D felony convictions was a felony which was punishable by imprisonment for a term of years[, e]ach was, therefore, an infamous crime” (citations omitted)); cf. Sutherlin v. Sutherlin, 27 Ind.App. 301, 61 N.E. 206, 206 (1901) (holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony). Compare Crampton, 193 Ind. at 557,139 N.E. at 362 (“It is obvious that a ‘sentence’ exceeding six months, without any indication as to where the imprisonment is to be, is not an apt designation of an infamous crime.”), and Wilson, 642 N.E.2d at 261 (“Inasmuch as Wilson might have been imprisoned for more than one year, his offense qualifies as an infamous crime.” (citation omitted)), with 1 Burns’ Ann. Ind. Stat. § 1866 (1914) (defining “felony” as a crime punishable “with death or imprisonment in the state prison”), and Ind.Code § 35-50-2-l(b) (1993) (defining “felony conviction” as a conviction for which a “convicted person might have been imprisoned for more than one (1) year”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "148 Ind. 409, 409",
"parenthetical": "holding \"that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime\"",
"sentence": "See Crum, 148 Ind. at 409, 47 N.E. at 835 (holding “that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime”); Taylor, 616 N.E.2d at 385 (holding that because “each of Taylor’s class D felony convictions was a felony which was punishable by imprisonment for a term of years[, e]ach was, therefore, an infamous crime” (citations omitted)); cf. Sutherlin v. Sutherlin, 27 Ind.App. 301, 61 N.E. 206, 206 (1901) (holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony). Compare Crampton, 193 Ind. at 557,139 N.E. at 362 (“It is obvious that a ‘sentence’ exceeding six months, without any indication as to where the imprisonment is to be, is not an apt designation of an infamous crime.”), and Wilson, 642 N.E.2d at 261 (“Inasmuch as Wilson might have been imprisoned for more than one year, his offense qualifies as an infamous crime.” (citation omitted)), with 1 Burns’ Ann. Ind. Stat. § 1866 (1914) (defining “felony” as a crime punishable “with death or imprisonment in the state prison”), and Ind.Code § 35-50-2-l(b) (1993) (defining “felony conviction” as a conviction for which a “convicted person might have been imprisoned for more than one (1) year”)."
} | 7,141,124 | b |
Relying on our case law, Snyder argues that an infamous crime is a felony, and therefore misdemeanor battery is not an infamous crime. Contrary to the State's assertions, this argument clearly is supported by the ease law. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "148 Ind. 409, 409",
"parenthetical": "holding \"that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime\"",
"sentence": "See Crum, 148 Ind. at 409, 47 N.E. at 835 (holding “that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime”); Taylor, 616 N.E.2d at 385 (holding that because “each of Taylor’s class D felony convictions was a felony which was punishable by imprisonment for a term of years[, e]ach was, therefore, an infamous crime” (citations omitted)); cf. Sutherlin v. Sutherlin, 27 Ind.App. 301, 61 N.E. 206, 206 (1901) (holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony). Compare Crampton, 193 Ind. at 557,139 N.E. at 362 (“It is obvious that a ‘sentence’ exceeding six months, without any indication as to where the imprisonment is to be, is not an apt designation of an infamous crime.”), and Wilson, 642 N.E.2d at 261 (“Inasmuch as Wilson might have been imprisoned for more than one year, his offense qualifies as an infamous crime.” (citation omitted)), with 1 Burns’ Ann. Ind. Stat. § 1866 (1914) (defining “felony” as a crime punishable “with death or imprisonment in the state prison”), and Ind.Code § 35-50-2-l(b) (1993) (defining “felony conviction” as a conviction for which a “convicted person might have been imprisoned for more than one (1) year”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "139 N.E. 362, 362",
"parenthetical": "\"It is obvious that a 'sentence' exceeding six months, without any indication as to where the imprisonment is to be, is not an apt designation of an infamous crime.\"",
"sentence": "See Crum, 148 Ind. at 409, 47 N.E. at 835 (holding “that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime”); Taylor, 616 N.E.2d at 385 (holding that because “each of Taylor’s class D felony convictions was a felony which was punishable by imprisonment for a term of years[, e]ach was, therefore, an infamous crime” (citations omitted)); cf. Sutherlin v. Sutherlin, 27 Ind.App. 301, 61 N.E. 206, 206 (1901) (holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony). Compare Crampton, 193 Ind. at 557,139 N.E. at 362 (“It is obvious that a ‘sentence’ exceeding six months, without any indication as to where the imprisonment is to be, is not an apt designation of an infamous crime.”), and Wilson, 642 N.E.2d at 261 (“Inasmuch as Wilson might have been imprisoned for more than one year, his offense qualifies as an infamous crime.” (citation omitted)), with 1 Burns’ Ann. Ind. Stat. § 1866 (1914) (defining “felony” as a crime punishable “with death or imprisonment in the state prison”), and Ind.Code § 35-50-2-l(b) (1993) (defining “felony conviction” as a conviction for which a “convicted person might have been imprisoned for more than one (1) year”)."
} | 7,141,124 | a |
Relying on our case law, Snyder argues that an infamous crime is a felony, and therefore misdemeanor battery is not an infamous crime. Contrary to the State's assertions, this argument clearly is supported by the ease law. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony",
"sentence": "See Crum, 148 Ind. at 409, 47 N.E. at 835 (holding “that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime”); Taylor, 616 N.E.2d at 385 (holding that because “each of Taylor’s class D felony convictions was a felony which was punishable by imprisonment for a term of years[, e]ach was, therefore, an infamous crime” (citations omitted)); cf. Sutherlin v. Sutherlin, 27 Ind.App. 301, 61 N.E. 206, 206 (1901) (holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony). Compare Crampton, 193 Ind. at 557,139 N.E. at 362 (“It is obvious that a ‘sentence’ exceeding six months, without any indication as to where the imprisonment is to be, is not an apt designation of an infamous crime.”), and Wilson, 642 N.E.2d at 261 (“Inasmuch as Wilson might have been imprisoned for more than one year, his offense qualifies as an infamous crime.” (citation omitted)), with 1 Burns’ Ann. Ind. Stat. § 1866 (1914) (defining “felony” as a crime punishable “with death or imprisonment in the state prison”), and Ind.Code § 35-50-2-l(b) (1993) (defining “felony conviction” as a conviction for which a “convicted person might have been imprisoned for more than one (1) year”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "47 N.E. 835, 835",
"parenthetical": "holding \"that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime\"",
"sentence": "See Crum, 148 Ind. at 409, 47 N.E. at 835 (holding “that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime”); Taylor, 616 N.E.2d at 385 (holding that because “each of Taylor’s class D felony convictions was a felony which was punishable by imprisonment for a term of years[, e]ach was, therefore, an infamous crime” (citations omitted)); cf. Sutherlin v. Sutherlin, 27 Ind.App. 301, 61 N.E. 206, 206 (1901) (holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony). Compare Crampton, 193 Ind. at 557,139 N.E. at 362 (“It is obvious that a ‘sentence’ exceeding six months, without any indication as to where the imprisonment is to be, is not an apt designation of an infamous crime.”), and Wilson, 642 N.E.2d at 261 (“Inasmuch as Wilson might have been imprisoned for more than one year, his offense qualifies as an infamous crime.” (citation omitted)), with 1 Burns’ Ann. Ind. Stat. § 1866 (1914) (defining “felony” as a crime punishable “with death or imprisonment in the state prison”), and Ind.Code § 35-50-2-l(b) (1993) (defining “felony conviction” as a conviction for which a “convicted person might have been imprisoned for more than one (1) year”)."
} | 7,141,124 | b |
Relying on our case law, Snyder argues that an infamous crime is a felony, and therefore misdemeanor battery is not an infamous crime. Contrary to the State's assertions, this argument clearly is supported by the ease law. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "47 N.E. 835, 835",
"parenthetical": "holding \"that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime\"",
"sentence": "See Crum, 148 Ind. at 409, 47 N.E. at 835 (holding “that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime”); Taylor, 616 N.E.2d at 385 (holding that because “each of Taylor’s class D felony convictions was a felony which was punishable by imprisonment for a term of years[, e]ach was, therefore, an infamous crime” (citations omitted)); cf. Sutherlin v. Sutherlin, 27 Ind.App. 301, 61 N.E. 206, 206 (1901) (holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony). Compare Crampton, 193 Ind. at 557,139 N.E. at 362 (“It is obvious that a ‘sentence’ exceeding six months, without any indication as to where the imprisonment is to be, is not an apt designation of an infamous crime.”), and Wilson, 642 N.E.2d at 261 (“Inasmuch as Wilson might have been imprisoned for more than one year, his offense qualifies as an infamous crime.” (citation omitted)), with 1 Burns’ Ann. Ind. Stat. § 1866 (1914) (defining “felony” as a crime punishable “with death or imprisonment in the state prison”), and Ind.Code § 35-50-2-l(b) (1993) (defining “felony conviction” as a conviction for which a “convicted person might have been imprisoned for more than one (1) year”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "61 N.E. 206, 206",
"parenthetical": "holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony",
"sentence": "See Crum, 148 Ind. at 409, 47 N.E. at 835 (holding “that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime”); Taylor, 616 N.E.2d at 385 (holding that because “each of Taylor’s class D felony convictions was a felony which was punishable by imprisonment for a term of years[, e]ach was, therefore, an infamous crime” (citations omitted)); cf. Sutherlin v. Sutherlin, 27 Ind.App. 301, 61 N.E. 206, 206 (1901) (holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony). Compare Crampton, 193 Ind. at 557,139 N.E. at 362 (“It is obvious that a ‘sentence’ exceeding six months, without any indication as to where the imprisonment is to be, is not an apt designation of an infamous crime.”), and Wilson, 642 N.E.2d at 261 (“Inasmuch as Wilson might have been imprisoned for more than one year, his offense qualifies as an infamous crime.” (citation omitted)), with 1 Burns’ Ann. Ind. Stat. § 1866 (1914) (defining “felony” as a crime punishable “with death or imprisonment in the state prison”), and Ind.Code § 35-50-2-l(b) (1993) (defining “felony conviction” as a conviction for which a “convicted person might have been imprisoned for more than one (1) year”)."
} | 7,141,124 | a |
Relying on our case law, Snyder argues that an infamous crime is a felony, and therefore misdemeanor battery is not an infamous crime. Contrary to the State's assertions, this argument clearly is supported by the ease law. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "47 N.E. 835, 835",
"parenthetical": "holding \"that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime\"",
"sentence": "See Crum, 148 Ind. at 409, 47 N.E. at 835 (holding “that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime”); Taylor, 616 N.E.2d at 385 (holding that because “each of Taylor’s class D felony convictions was a felony which was punishable by imprisonment for a term of years[, e]ach was, therefore, an infamous crime” (citations omitted)); cf. Sutherlin v. Sutherlin, 27 Ind.App. 301, 61 N.E. 206, 206 (1901) (holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony). Compare Crampton, 193 Ind. at 557,139 N.E. at 362 (“It is obvious that a ‘sentence’ exceeding six months, without any indication as to where the imprisonment is to be, is not an apt designation of an infamous crime.”), and Wilson, 642 N.E.2d at 261 (“Inasmuch as Wilson might have been imprisoned for more than one year, his offense qualifies as an infamous crime.” (citation omitted)), with 1 Burns’ Ann. Ind. Stat. § 1866 (1914) (defining “felony” as a crime punishable “with death or imprisonment in the state prison”), and Ind.Code § 35-50-2-l(b) (1993) (defining “felony conviction” as a conviction for which a “convicted person might have been imprisoned for more than one (1) year”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "139 N.E. 362, 362",
"parenthetical": "\"It is obvious that a 'sentence' exceeding six months, without any indication as to where the imprisonment is to be, is not an apt designation of an infamous crime.\"",
"sentence": "See Crum, 148 Ind. at 409, 47 N.E. at 835 (holding “that larceny, being a felony, is an infamous crime”); Taylor, 616 N.E.2d at 385 (holding that because “each of Taylor’s class D felony convictions was a felony which was punishable by imprisonment for a term of years[, e]ach was, therefore, an infamous crime” (citations omitted)); cf. Sutherlin v. Sutherlin, 27 Ind.App. 301, 61 N.E. 206, 206 (1901) (holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony). Compare Crampton, 193 Ind. at 557,139 N.E. at 362 (“It is obvious that a ‘sentence’ exceeding six months, without any indication as to where the imprisonment is to be, is not an apt designation of an infamous crime.”), and Wilson, 642 N.E.2d at 261 (“Inasmuch as Wilson might have been imprisoned for more than one year, his offense qualifies as an infamous crime.” (citation omitted)), with 1 Burns’ Ann. Ind. Stat. § 1866 (1914) (defining “felony” as a crime punishable “with death or imprisonment in the state prison”), and Ind.Code § 35-50-2-l(b) (1993) (defining “felony conviction” as a conviction for which a “convicted person might have been imprisoned for more than one (1) year”)."
} | 7,141,124 | a |
This Court interprets the state habeas appellate court's affirmance without an opinion to be a denial on the merits. Thus, Plasencia's claim is not proeedurally barred because the state court did not "clearly and expressly [state] that its judgment rests on a procedural bar." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "385 So.2d 1356, 1359",
"parenthetical": "holding a per curiam affirmance from a Florida District Court of Appeal is not renewable by the Florida Supreme Court",
"sentence": "See Johnson, 938 F.2d at 1173. Furthermore, Plasencia exhausted his state court remedies because he presented his claim to the state’s highest court in his motion for rehearing on direct appeal, and in his Rule 3.850 motion, which was affirmed per curiam by the Second District Court of Appeal. See Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1156 (11th Cir.2010) (stating to exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must have presented the issues raised in the federal habeas petition to the state’s highest court,' either on direct appeal or collateral review); see also Jenkins v. State, 385 So.2d 1356, 1359 (Fla.1980) (holding a per curiam affirmance from a Florida District Court of Appeal is not renewable by the Florida Supreme Court)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "938 F.2d 1173, 1173",
"parenthetical": "stating to exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must have presented the issues raised in the federal habeas petition to the state's highest court,' either on direct appeal or collateral review",
"sentence": "See Johnson, 938 F.2d at 1173. Furthermore, Plasencia exhausted his state court remedies because he presented his claim to the state’s highest court in his motion for rehearing on direct appeal, and in his Rule 3.850 motion, which was affirmed per curiam by the Second District Court of Appeal. See Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1156 (11th Cir.2010) (stating to exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must have presented the issues raised in the federal habeas petition to the state’s highest court,' either on direct appeal or collateral review); see also Jenkins v. State, 385 So.2d 1356, 1359 (Fla.1980) (holding a per curiam affirmance from a Florida District Court of Appeal is not renewable by the Florida Supreme Court)."
} | 5,927,043 | b |
This Court interprets the state habeas appellate court's affirmance without an opinion to be a denial on the merits. Thus, Plasencia's claim is not proeedurally barred because the state court did not "clearly and expressly [state] that its judgment rests on a procedural bar." | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "592 F.3d 1144, 1156",
"parenthetical": "stating to exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must have presented the issues raised in the federal habeas petition to the state's highest court,' either on direct appeal or collateral review",
"sentence": "See Johnson, 938 F.2d at 1173. Furthermore, Plasencia exhausted his state court remedies because he presented his claim to the state’s highest court in his motion for rehearing on direct appeal, and in his Rule 3.850 motion, which was affirmed per curiam by the Second District Court of Appeal. See Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1156 (11th Cir.2010) (stating to exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must have presented the issues raised in the federal habeas petition to the state’s highest court,' either on direct appeal or collateral review); see also Jenkins v. State, 385 So.2d 1356, 1359 (Fla.1980) (holding a per curiam affirmance from a Florida District Court of Appeal is not renewable by the Florida Supreme Court)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "385 So.2d 1356, 1359",
"parenthetical": "holding a per curiam affirmance from a Florida District Court of Appeal is not renewable by the Florida Supreme Court",
"sentence": "See Johnson, 938 F.2d at 1173. Furthermore, Plasencia exhausted his state court remedies because he presented his claim to the state’s highest court in his motion for rehearing on direct appeal, and in his Rule 3.850 motion, which was affirmed per curiam by the Second District Court of Appeal. See Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1156 (11th Cir.2010) (stating to exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must have presented the issues raised in the federal habeas petition to the state’s highest court,' either on direct appeal or collateral review); see also Jenkins v. State, 385 So.2d 1356, 1359 (Fla.1980) (holding a per curiam affirmance from a Florida District Court of Appeal is not renewable by the Florida Supreme Court)."
} | 5,927,043 | a |
. Of particular relevance to the challenge made by Keyes here is the rule that the federal due process guarantee does not "prevent a state from prescribing a reasonable and appropriate condition precedent to the bringing of a suit of a specified kind or class so long as the basis of distinction is real and the condition imposed has reasonable relation to a legitimate object." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "256 N.W.2d 668, 668",
"parenthetical": "legislature may pass law which seeks to distinguish between different types of tort actions so long as distinctions are reasonable and grounded upon real differences inherent in those actions",
"sentence": "Jones v. Union Guano Co., 264 U.S. 171, 181, 44 S.Ct. 280, 282, 68 L.Ed. 623, 628 (1924) (upholding state statute providing that no suit for damages to crops resulting from fertilizer use may be brought except after chemical analysis showing deficiency of ingredients); see also Prendergast, 256 N.W.2d at 668 (legislature may pass law which seeks to distinguish between different types of tort actions so long as distinctions are reasonable and grounded upon real differences inherent in those actions)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "264 U.S. 171, 181",
"parenthetical": "upholding state statute providing that no suit for damages to crops resulting from fertilizer use may be brought except after chemical analysis showing deficiency of ingredients",
"sentence": "Jones v. Union Guano Co., 264 U.S. 171, 181, 44 S.Ct. 280, 282, 68 L.Ed. 623, 628 (1924) (upholding state statute providing that no suit for damages to crops resulting from fertilizer use may be brought except after chemical analysis showing deficiency of ingredients); see also Prendergast, 256 N.W.2d at 668 (legislature may pass law which seeks to distinguish between different types of tort actions so long as distinctions are reasonable and grounded upon real differences inherent in those actions)."
} | 11,336,212 | b |
. Of particular relevance to the challenge made by Keyes here is the rule that the federal due process guarantee does not "prevent a state from prescribing a reasonable and appropriate condition precedent to the bringing of a suit of a specified kind or class so long as the basis of distinction is real and the condition imposed has reasonable relation to a legitimate object." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "256 N.W.2d 668, 668",
"parenthetical": "legislature may pass law which seeks to distinguish between different types of tort actions so long as distinctions are reasonable and grounded upon real differences inherent in those actions",
"sentence": "Jones v. Union Guano Co., 264 U.S. 171, 181, 44 S.Ct. 280, 282, 68 L.Ed. 623, 628 (1924) (upholding state statute providing that no suit for damages to crops resulting from fertilizer use may be brought except after chemical analysis showing deficiency of ingredients); see also Prendergast, 256 N.W.2d at 668 (legislature may pass law which seeks to distinguish between different types of tort actions so long as distinctions are reasonable and grounded upon real differences inherent in those actions)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "44 S.Ct. 280, 282",
"parenthetical": "upholding state statute providing that no suit for damages to crops resulting from fertilizer use may be brought except after chemical analysis showing deficiency of ingredients",
"sentence": "Jones v. Union Guano Co., 264 U.S. 171, 181, 44 S.Ct. 280, 282, 68 L.Ed. 623, 628 (1924) (upholding state statute providing that no suit for damages to crops resulting from fertilizer use may be brought except after chemical analysis showing deficiency of ingredients); see also Prendergast, 256 N.W.2d at 668 (legislature may pass law which seeks to distinguish between different types of tort actions so long as distinctions are reasonable and grounded upon real differences inherent in those actions)."
} | 11,336,212 | b |
. Of particular relevance to the challenge made by Keyes here is the rule that the federal due process guarantee does not "prevent a state from prescribing a reasonable and appropriate condition precedent to the bringing of a suit of a specified kind or class so long as the basis of distinction is real and the condition imposed has reasonable relation to a legitimate object." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "256 N.W.2d 668, 668",
"parenthetical": "legislature may pass law which seeks to distinguish between different types of tort actions so long as distinctions are reasonable and grounded upon real differences inherent in those actions",
"sentence": "Jones v. Union Guano Co., 264 U.S. 171, 181, 44 S.Ct. 280, 282, 68 L.Ed. 623, 628 (1924) (upholding state statute providing that no suit for damages to crops resulting from fertilizer use may be brought except after chemical analysis showing deficiency of ingredients); see also Prendergast, 256 N.W.2d at 668 (legislature may pass law which seeks to distinguish between different types of tort actions so long as distinctions are reasonable and grounded upon real differences inherent in those actions)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "68 L.Ed. 623, 628",
"parenthetical": "upholding state statute providing that no suit for damages to crops resulting from fertilizer use may be brought except after chemical analysis showing deficiency of ingredients",
"sentence": "Jones v. Union Guano Co., 264 U.S. 171, 181, 44 S.Ct. 280, 282, 68 L.Ed. 623, 628 (1924) (upholding state statute providing that no suit for damages to crops resulting from fertilizer use may be brought except after chemical analysis showing deficiency of ingredients); see also Prendergast, 256 N.W.2d at 668 (legislature may pass law which seeks to distinguish between different types of tort actions so long as distinctions are reasonable and grounded upon real differences inherent in those actions)."
} | 11,336,212 | b |
It plainly did not do so here. Second, the Maine Constitution commands a presumption in favor of judicial access. See M.R.S.A. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2008 WL 4850198, at *3",
"parenthetical": "invoking similar \"presumption in favor of judicial jurisdiction\" to reject title insurer's exhaustion argument",
"sentence": "Const. Art. 1, § 19; State v. Bilynsky, 942 A.2d 1234, 1236 (Me.2008); Gibson v. Nat’l Ben Franklin Ins. Co., 387 A.2d 220, 223 (Me.1978) (“In view of that provision, legislation should not be deemed to preclude an injured person from having a remedy of his own for a recognized wrong in the absence of a clear manifestation of intent to that effect.”); see also Johnson, 2008 WL 4850198, at *3 (invoking similar “presumption in favor of judicial jurisdiction” to reject title insurer’s exhaustion argument)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "387 A.2d 220, 223",
"parenthetical": "\"In view of that provision, legislation should not be deemed to preclude an injured person from having a remedy of his own for a recognized wrong in the absence of a clear manifestation of intent to that effect.\"",
"sentence": "Const. Art. 1, § 19; State v. Bilynsky, 942 A.2d 1234, 1236 (Me.2008); Gibson v. Nat’l Ben Franklin Ins. Co., 387 A.2d 220, 223 (Me.1978) (“In view of that provision, legislation should not be deemed to preclude an injured person from having a remedy of his own for a recognized wrong in the absence of a clear manifestation of intent to that effect.”); see also Johnson, 2008 WL 4850198, at *3 (invoking similar “presumption in favor of judicial jurisdiction” to reject title insurer’s exhaustion argument)."
} | 4,186,959 | b |
But, as Bennett points out, at least one circuit has refused to apply the procedural default rule to claims that, though not expressly raised on direct appeal, fit into the category of claims for which a state supreme court is statutorily required to review all appeals in capital cases. In Beam, the petitioner had failed on direct review to specifically appeal the trial court's application of the "continuing threat" aggravator to him. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit held that, because the Idaho Supreme Court was statutorily required to review Beam's capital sentence to determine if it was infected by "passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor," that, court must be deemed to have implicitly ruled on the constitutionality of the trial judge's application of the "continuing threat" factor to Beam. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit concluded, Beam had not defaulted by failing specifically to raise that claim on direct review, hence the claim could be reviewed on federal habeas. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "62 F.3d 1024, 1039",
"parenthetical": "concluding that, under Beam analysis, challenge to trial instructions not preserved because Missouri mandatory review statute did not require review of trial errors",
"sentence": "Id. at 1307 (citing Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) (Oklahoma statute requiring its supreme court to review for “fundamental error” in capital cases preserved constitutional errors for direct federal review, despite failure to raise them in state direct appeal)); cf. Nave v. Delo, 62 F.3d 1024, 1039 (8th Cir.1995) (concluding that, under Beam analysis, challenge to trial instructions not preserved because Missouri mandatory review statute did not require review of trial errors)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "Oklahoma statute requiring its supreme court to review for \"fundamental error\" in capital cases preserved constitutional errors for direct federal review, despite failure to raise them in state direct appeal",
"sentence": "Id. at 1307 (citing Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) (Oklahoma statute requiring its supreme court to review for “fundamental error” in capital cases preserved constitutional errors for direct federal review, despite failure to raise them in state direct appeal)); cf. Nave v. Delo, 62 F.3d 1024, 1039 (8th Cir.1995) (concluding that, under Beam analysis, challenge to trial instructions not preserved because Missouri mandatory review statute did not require review of trial errors)."
} | 7,637,785 | b |
But, as Bennett points out, at least one circuit has refused to apply the procedural default rule to claims that, though not expressly raised on direct appeal, fit into the category of claims for which a state supreme court is statutorily required to review all appeals in capital cases. In Beam, the petitioner had failed on direct review to specifically appeal the trial court's application of the "continuing threat" aggravator to him. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit held that, because the Idaho Supreme Court was statutorily required to review Beam's capital sentence to determine if it was infected by "passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor," that, court must be deemed to have implicitly ruled on the constitutionality of the trial judge's application of the "continuing threat" factor to Beam. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit concluded, Beam had not defaulted by failing specifically to raise that claim on direct review, hence the claim could be reviewed on federal habeas. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "Oklahoma statute requiring its supreme court to review for \"fundamental error\" in capital cases preserved constitutional errors for direct federal review, despite failure to raise them in state direct appeal",
"sentence": "Id. at 1307 (citing Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) (Oklahoma statute requiring its supreme court to review for “fundamental error” in capital cases preserved constitutional errors for direct federal review, despite failure to raise them in state direct appeal)); cf. Nave v. Delo, 62 F.3d 1024, 1039 (8th Cir.1995) (concluding that, under Beam analysis, challenge to trial instructions not preserved because Missouri mandatory review statute did not require review of trial errors)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "62 F.3d 1024, 1039",
"parenthetical": "concluding that, under Beam analysis, challenge to trial instructions not preserved because Missouri mandatory review statute did not require review of trial errors",
"sentence": "Id. at 1307 (citing Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) (Oklahoma statute requiring its supreme court to review for “fundamental error” in capital cases preserved constitutional errors for direct federal review, despite failure to raise them in state direct appeal)); cf. Nave v. Delo, 62 F.3d 1024, 1039 (8th Cir.1995) (concluding that, under Beam analysis, challenge to trial instructions not preserved because Missouri mandatory review statute did not require review of trial errors)."
} | 7,637,785 | a |
But, as Bennett points out, at least one circuit has refused to apply the procedural default rule to claims that, though not expressly raised on direct appeal, fit into the category of claims for which a state supreme court is statutorily required to review all appeals in capital cases. In Beam, the petitioner had failed on direct review to specifically appeal the trial court's application of the "continuing threat" aggravator to him. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit held that, because the Idaho Supreme Court was statutorily required to review Beam's capital sentence to determine if it was infected by "passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor," that, court must be deemed to have implicitly ruled on the constitutionality of the trial judge's application of the "continuing threat" factor to Beam. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit concluded, Beam had not defaulted by failing specifically to raise that claim on direct review, hence the claim could be reviewed on federal habeas. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "Oklahoma statute requiring its supreme court to review for \"fundamental error\" in capital cases preserved constitutional errors for direct federal review, despite failure to raise them in state direct appeal",
"sentence": "Id. at 1307 (citing Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) (Oklahoma statute requiring its supreme court to review for “fundamental error” in capital cases preserved constitutional errors for direct federal review, despite failure to raise them in state direct appeal)); cf. Nave v. Delo, 62 F.3d 1024, 1039 (8th Cir.1995) (concluding that, under Beam analysis, challenge to trial instructions not preserved because Missouri mandatory review statute did not require review of trial errors)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "62 F.3d 1024, 1039",
"parenthetical": "concluding that, under Beam analysis, challenge to trial instructions not preserved because Missouri mandatory review statute did not require review of trial errors",
"sentence": "Id. at 1307 (citing Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) (Oklahoma statute requiring its supreme court to review for “fundamental error” in capital cases preserved constitutional errors for direct federal review, despite failure to raise them in state direct appeal)); cf. Nave v. Delo, 62 F.3d 1024, 1039 (8th Cir.1995) (concluding that, under Beam analysis, challenge to trial instructions not preserved because Missouri mandatory review statute did not require review of trial errors)."
} | 7,637,785 | a |
The Supreme Court has repeatedly concluded that orders denying absolute immunity are renewable on interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that appellate jurisdiction over denial of President's claim to absolute immunity was proper",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982) (concluding that appellate jurisdiction over denial of President’s claim to absolute immunity was proper); Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 99 S.Ct. 2445, 61 L.Ed.2d 30 (1979) (reviewing claim of immunity under Speech or Debate Clause); see also Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that the denial of a claim of absolute immunity raised in a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss “is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "183 F.3d 962, 965",
"parenthetical": "concluding that the denial of a claim of absolute immunity raised in a 12(b",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982) (concluding that appellate jurisdiction over denial of President’s claim to absolute immunity was proper); Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 99 S.Ct. 2445, 61 L.Ed.2d 30 (1979) (reviewing claim of immunity under Speech or Debate Clause); see also Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that the denial of a claim of absolute immunity raised in a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss “is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine”)."
} | 9,418,594 | a |
The Supreme Court has repeatedly concluded that orders denying absolute immunity are renewable on interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "183 F.3d 962, 965",
"parenthetical": "concluding that the denial of a claim of absolute immunity raised in a 12(b",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982) (concluding that appellate jurisdiction over denial of President’s claim to absolute immunity was proper); Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 99 S.Ct. 2445, 61 L.Ed.2d 30 (1979) (reviewing claim of immunity under Speech or Debate Clause); see also Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that the denial of a claim of absolute immunity raised in a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss “is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that appellate jurisdiction over denial of President's claim to absolute immunity was proper",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982) (concluding that appellate jurisdiction over denial of President’s claim to absolute immunity was proper); Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 99 S.Ct. 2445, 61 L.Ed.2d 30 (1979) (reviewing claim of immunity under Speech or Debate Clause); see also Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that the denial of a claim of absolute immunity raised in a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss “is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine”)."
} | 9,418,594 | b |
The Supreme Court has repeatedly concluded that orders denying absolute immunity are renewable on interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that appellate jurisdiction over denial of President's claim to absolute immunity was proper",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982) (concluding that appellate jurisdiction over denial of President’s claim to absolute immunity was proper); Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 99 S.Ct. 2445, 61 L.Ed.2d 30 (1979) (reviewing claim of immunity under Speech or Debate Clause); see also Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that the denial of a claim of absolute immunity raised in a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss “is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "183 F.3d 962, 965",
"parenthetical": "concluding that the denial of a claim of absolute immunity raised in a 12(b",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982) (concluding that appellate jurisdiction over denial of President’s claim to absolute immunity was proper); Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 99 S.Ct. 2445, 61 L.Ed.2d 30 (1979) (reviewing claim of immunity under Speech or Debate Clause); see also Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that the denial of a claim of absolute immunity raised in a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss “is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine”)."
} | 9,418,594 | a |
Because the trial court did not follow the statutory methodology when it made its custody determination, and application of that methodology on remand will require the court to make factual findings that may be dependent on the court's assessment of the parties' credibility, we decline to exercise our discretion to review the case de novo, and, instead, we vacate and remand. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "248 Or App 616, 618, 623",
"parenthetical": "declining to exercise de novo review and instead vacating and remanding the trial court's custody judgment because the trial court did not afford the statutory preference to the primary caregiver",
"sentence": "See Olson and Olson, 218 Or App 1, 16, 178 P3d 272 (2008) (“[A] trial court’s *** award must reflect the exercise of discretion under the correct methodology, and it must lie within the range of legally permissible outcomes.”); see also Nice v. Townley, 248 Or App 616, 618, 623, 274 P3d 227 (2012) (declining to exercise de novo review and instead vacating and remanding the trial court’s custody judgment because the trial court did not afford the statutory preference to the primary caregiver)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "218 Or App 1, 16",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] trial court's *** award must reflect the exercise of discretion under the correct methodology, and it must lie within the range of legally permissible outcomes.\"",
"sentence": "See Olson and Olson, 218 Or App 1, 16, 178 P3d 272 (2008) (“[A] trial court’s *** award must reflect the exercise of discretion under the correct methodology, and it must lie within the range of legally permissible outcomes.”); see also Nice v. Townley, 248 Or App 616, 618, 623, 274 P3d 227 (2012) (declining to exercise de novo review and instead vacating and remanding the trial court’s custody judgment because the trial court did not afford the statutory preference to the primary caregiver)."
} | 3,996,638 | b |
Rather than showing excusable neglect, then, plaintiff has demonstrated that his lawyer either made a tactical decision not to file responsive papers or was ignorant of the procedural rules governing extensions of time in the federal courts. Thus, even accepting that plaintiff failed to file responsive papers for these reasons, plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1). | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "535 F.2d 739, 739",
"parenthetical": "attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1",
"sentence": "See Cirami I, 535 F.2d at 739 (attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); see also Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 62 (2d Cir.1986) (attorney’s failure to evaluate or understand the legal consequences of a chosen course of action insufficient ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); United States v. Erdoss, 440 F.2d 1221, 1223 (2d Cir.) (illness of lawyer and lawyer’s mistake as to applicable law insufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 849, 92 S.Ct. 83, 30 L.Ed.2d 88 (1971); United States v. Kirksey, 631 F.Supp. 165, 166-69 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (litigant’s failure to communicate effectively with counsel, and attorney’s tactical decision not to file opposing motions, not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1))."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "793 F.2d 58, 62",
"parenthetical": "attorney's failure to evaluate or understand the legal consequences of a chosen course of action insufficient ground for relief under Rule 60(b",
"sentence": "See Cirami I, 535 F.2d at 739 (attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); see also Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 62 (2d Cir.1986) (attorney’s failure to evaluate or understand the legal consequences of a chosen course of action insufficient ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); United States v. Erdoss, 440 F.2d 1221, 1223 (2d Cir.) (illness of lawyer and lawyer’s mistake as to applicable law insufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 849, 92 S.Ct. 83, 30 L.Ed.2d 88 (1971); United States v. Kirksey, 631 F.Supp. 165, 166-69 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (litigant’s failure to communicate effectively with counsel, and attorney’s tactical decision not to file opposing motions, not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1))."
} | 7,851,751 | a |
Rather than showing excusable neglect, then, plaintiff has demonstrated that his lawyer either made a tactical decision not to file responsive papers or was ignorant of the procedural rules governing extensions of time in the federal courts. Thus, even accepting that plaintiff failed to file responsive papers for these reasons, plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1). | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "440 F.2d 1221, 1223",
"parenthetical": "illness of lawyer and lawyer's mistake as to applicable law insufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60(b",
"sentence": "See Cirami I, 535 F.2d at 739 (attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); see also Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 62 (2d Cir.1986) (attorney’s failure to evaluate or understand the legal consequences of a chosen course of action insufficient ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); United States v. Erdoss, 440 F.2d 1221, 1223 (2d Cir.) (illness of lawyer and lawyer’s mistake as to applicable law insufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 849, 92 S.Ct. 83, 30 L.Ed.2d 88 (1971); United States v. Kirksey, 631 F.Supp. 165, 166-69 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (litigant’s failure to communicate effectively with counsel, and attorney’s tactical decision not to file opposing motions, not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1))."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "535 F.2d 739, 739",
"parenthetical": "attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1",
"sentence": "See Cirami I, 535 F.2d at 739 (attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); see also Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 62 (2d Cir.1986) (attorney’s failure to evaluate or understand the legal consequences of a chosen course of action insufficient ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); United States v. Erdoss, 440 F.2d 1221, 1223 (2d Cir.) (illness of lawyer and lawyer’s mistake as to applicable law insufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 849, 92 S.Ct. 83, 30 L.Ed.2d 88 (1971); United States v. Kirksey, 631 F.Supp. 165, 166-69 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (litigant’s failure to communicate effectively with counsel, and attorney’s tactical decision not to file opposing motions, not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1))."
} | 7,851,751 | b |
Rather than showing excusable neglect, then, plaintiff has demonstrated that his lawyer either made a tactical decision not to file responsive papers or was ignorant of the procedural rules governing extensions of time in the federal courts. Thus, even accepting that plaintiff failed to file responsive papers for these reasons, plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1). | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "illness of lawyer and lawyer's mistake as to applicable law insufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60(b",
"sentence": "See Cirami I, 535 F.2d at 739 (attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); see also Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 62 (2d Cir.1986) (attorney’s failure to evaluate or understand the legal consequences of a chosen course of action insufficient ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); United States v. Erdoss, 440 F.2d 1221, 1223 (2d Cir.) (illness of lawyer and lawyer’s mistake as to applicable law insufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 849, 92 S.Ct. 83, 30 L.Ed.2d 88 (1971); United States v. Kirksey, 631 F.Supp. 165, 166-69 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (litigant’s failure to communicate effectively with counsel, and attorney’s tactical decision not to file opposing motions, not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1))."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "535 F.2d 739, 739",
"parenthetical": "attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1",
"sentence": "See Cirami I, 535 F.2d at 739 (attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); see also Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 62 (2d Cir.1986) (attorney’s failure to evaluate or understand the legal consequences of a chosen course of action insufficient ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); United States v. Erdoss, 440 F.2d 1221, 1223 (2d Cir.) (illness of lawyer and lawyer’s mistake as to applicable law insufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 849, 92 S.Ct. 83, 30 L.Ed.2d 88 (1971); United States v. Kirksey, 631 F.Supp. 165, 166-69 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (litigant’s failure to communicate effectively with counsel, and attorney’s tactical decision not to file opposing motions, not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1))."
} | 7,851,751 | b |
Rather than showing excusable neglect, then, plaintiff has demonstrated that his lawyer either made a tactical decision not to file responsive papers or was ignorant of the procedural rules governing extensions of time in the federal courts. Thus, even accepting that plaintiff failed to file responsive papers for these reasons, plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1). | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "illness of lawyer and lawyer's mistake as to applicable law insufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60(b",
"sentence": "See Cirami I, 535 F.2d at 739 (attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); see also Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 62 (2d Cir.1986) (attorney’s failure to evaluate or understand the legal consequences of a chosen course of action insufficient ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); United States v. Erdoss, 440 F.2d 1221, 1223 (2d Cir.) (illness of lawyer and lawyer’s mistake as to applicable law insufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 849, 92 S.Ct. 83, 30 L.Ed.2d 88 (1971); United States v. Kirksey, 631 F.Supp. 165, 166-69 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (litigant’s failure to communicate effectively with counsel, and attorney’s tactical decision not to file opposing motions, not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1))."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "535 F.2d 739, 739",
"parenthetical": "attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1",
"sentence": "See Cirami I, 535 F.2d at 739 (attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); see also Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 62 (2d Cir.1986) (attorney’s failure to evaluate or understand the legal consequences of a chosen course of action insufficient ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); United States v. Erdoss, 440 F.2d 1221, 1223 (2d Cir.) (illness of lawyer and lawyer’s mistake as to applicable law insufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 849, 92 S.Ct. 83, 30 L.Ed.2d 88 (1971); United States v. Kirksey, 631 F.Supp. 165, 166-69 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (litigant’s failure to communicate effectively with counsel, and attorney’s tactical decision not to file opposing motions, not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1))."
} | 7,851,751 | b |
Rather than showing excusable neglect, then, plaintiff has demonstrated that his lawyer either made a tactical decision not to file responsive papers or was ignorant of the procedural rules governing extensions of time in the federal courts. Thus, even accepting that plaintiff failed to file responsive papers for these reasons, plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1). | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "535 F.2d 739, 739",
"parenthetical": "attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1",
"sentence": "See Cirami I, 535 F.2d at 739 (attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); see also Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 62 (2d Cir.1986) (attorney’s failure to evaluate or understand the legal consequences of a chosen course of action insufficient ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); United States v. Erdoss, 440 F.2d 1221, 1223 (2d Cir.) (illness of lawyer and lawyer’s mistake as to applicable law insufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 849, 92 S.Ct. 83, 30 L.Ed.2d 88 (1971); United States v. Kirksey, 631 F.Supp. 165, 166-69 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (litigant’s failure to communicate effectively with counsel, and attorney’s tactical decision not to file opposing motions, not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1))."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "illness of lawyer and lawyer's mistake as to applicable law insufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60(b",
"sentence": "See Cirami I, 535 F.2d at 739 (attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); see also Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 62 (2d Cir.1986) (attorney’s failure to evaluate or understand the legal consequences of a chosen course of action insufficient ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); United States v. Erdoss, 440 F.2d 1221, 1223 (2d Cir.) (illness of lawyer and lawyer’s mistake as to applicable law insufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 849, 92 S.Ct. 83, 30 L.Ed.2d 88 (1971); United States v. Kirksey, 631 F.Supp. 165, 166-69 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (litigant’s failure to communicate effectively with counsel, and attorney’s tactical decision not to file opposing motions, not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1))."
} | 7,851,751 | a |
Rather than showing excusable neglect, then, plaintiff has demonstrated that his lawyer either made a tactical decision not to file responsive papers or was ignorant of the procedural rules governing extensions of time in the federal courts. Thus, even accepting that plaintiff failed to file responsive papers for these reasons, plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1). | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "535 F.2d 739, 739",
"parenthetical": "attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1",
"sentence": "See Cirami I, 535 F.2d at 739 (attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); see also Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 62 (2d Cir.1986) (attorney’s failure to evaluate or understand the legal consequences of a chosen course of action insufficient ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); United States v. Erdoss, 440 F.2d 1221, 1223 (2d Cir.) (illness of lawyer and lawyer’s mistake as to applicable law insufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 849, 92 S.Ct. 83, 30 L.Ed.2d 88 (1971); United States v. Kirksey, 631 F.Supp. 165, 166-69 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (litigant’s failure to communicate effectively with counsel, and attorney’s tactical decision not to file opposing motions, not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1))."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "631 F.Supp. 165, 166-69",
"parenthetical": "litigant's failure to communicate effectively with counsel, and attorney's tactical decision not to file opposing motions, not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b",
"sentence": "See Cirami I, 535 F.2d at 739 (attorney's ignorance of proper procedure insufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); see also Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 62 (2d Cir.1986) (attorney’s failure to evaluate or understand the legal consequences of a chosen course of action insufficient ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)); United States v. Erdoss, 440 F.2d 1221, 1223 (2d Cir.) (illness of lawyer and lawyer’s mistake as to applicable law insufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 849, 92 S.Ct. 83, 30 L.Ed.2d 88 (1971); United States v. Kirksey, 631 F.Supp. 165, 166-69 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (litigant’s failure to communicate effectively with counsel, and attorney’s tactical decision not to file opposing motions, not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1))."
} | 7,851,751 | a |
Specifically, it is up to this Court to determine whether Defendants' inclusion of the Ten Commandments in the displays was a "purposeful or surreptitious effort to express some kind of subtle governmental advocacy of a particular religious message." To satisfy this prong of the Lemon test, Plaintiffs must show that Defendants' predominate purpose for the displays was religious. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "449 U.S. 41, 41",
"parenthetical": "examining \"pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls\"",
"sentence": "See also Stone, 449 U.S. at 41, 101 S.Ct. 192 (examining “pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls”); Aguillard, 482 U.S. at 599, 107 S.Ct. 2573 (Powell, J., concurring) (“A religious purpose alone is not enough to invalidate an act of a state legislature."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "307 F.3d 480, 480",
"parenthetical": "\"Although a totally secular purpose is not required, it is clear that the secular purpose requirement is not satisfied ... by the mere existence of some secular purpose, however dominated by religious purposes.\"",
"sentence": "See Adland, 307 F.3d at 480 (“Although a totally secular purpose is not required, it is clear that the secular purpose requirement is not satisfied ... by the mere existence of some secular purpose, however dominated by religious purposes.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)."
} | 9,295,726 | b |
Specifically, it is up to this Court to determine whether Defendants' inclusion of the Ten Commandments in the displays was a "purposeful or surreptitious effort to express some kind of subtle governmental advocacy of a particular religious message." To satisfy this prong of the Lemon test, Plaintiffs must show that Defendants' predominate purpose for the displays was religious. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "examining \"pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls\"",
"sentence": "See also Stone, 449 U.S. at 41, 101 S.Ct. 192 (examining “pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls”); Aguillard, 482 U.S. at 599, 107 S.Ct. 2573 (Powell, J., concurring) (“A religious purpose alone is not enough to invalidate an act of a state legislature."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "307 F.3d 480, 480",
"parenthetical": "\"Although a totally secular purpose is not required, it is clear that the secular purpose requirement is not satisfied ... by the mere existence of some secular purpose, however dominated by religious purposes.\"",
"sentence": "See Adland, 307 F.3d at 480 (“Although a totally secular purpose is not required, it is clear that the secular purpose requirement is not satisfied ... by the mere existence of some secular purpose, however dominated by religious purposes.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)."
} | 9,295,726 | b |
Missouri's interest in preserving public confidence in the fact and appearance of the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary was compelling and outweighed the employee's interest in publicly expressing her political preference. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "deputy probation officer may be prohibited from displaying signs expressing opinion in favor of fugitive radicals",
"sentence": "Connealy v. Walsh, supra, 412 F.Supp. at 158; see also Phillips v. Adult Probation Dep’t of San Francisco, 491 F.2d 951 (9th Cir.1974) (deputy probation officer may be prohibited from displaying signs expressing opinion in favor of fugitive radicals)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "judicial prohibition against institution of litigation by probation officer invalid because motivated by judge's disapproval of the litigation, not disruption of court practices",
"sentence": "But see Abbott v. Thetford, 529 F.2d 695 (5th Cir.1976) (judicial prohibition against institution of litigation by probation officer invalid because motivated by judge’s disapproval of the litigation, not disruption of court practices)."
} | 1,359,986 | a |
We hold that JRS & G's takings claim accrued not later than February of 1994 upon the completion of the 1994 fence. The 1994 security fence ran across JRS & G's plant area, cutting off JRS & G's access to its pond and stockpile areas. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "952 F.2d 1376, 1376",
"parenthetical": "finding that groundwater monitoring wells were permanent in nature given their structure",
"sentence": "See Loretto, 458 U.S. at 422, 102 S.Ct. 3164 (finding cables attached by screws and nails and a box attached by bolts to be sufficiently permanent to comprise a physical taking); see also Hendler, 952 F.2d at 1376 (finding that groundwater monitoring wells were permanent in nature given their structure)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "458 U.S. 422, 422",
"parenthetical": "finding cables attached by screws and nails and a box attached by bolts to be sufficiently permanent to comprise a physical taking",
"sentence": "See Loretto, 458 U.S. at 422, 102 S.Ct. 3164 (finding cables attached by screws and nails and a box attached by bolts to be sufficiently permanent to comprise a physical taking); see also Hendler, 952 F.2d at 1376 (finding that groundwater monitoring wells were permanent in nature given their structure)."
} | 3,789,290 | b |
We hold that JRS & G's takings claim accrued not later than February of 1994 upon the completion of the 1994 fence. The 1994 security fence ran across JRS & G's plant area, cutting off JRS & G's access to its pond and stockpile areas. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding cables attached by screws and nails and a box attached by bolts to be sufficiently permanent to comprise a physical taking",
"sentence": "See Loretto, 458 U.S. at 422, 102 S.Ct. 3164 (finding cables attached by screws and nails and a box attached by bolts to be sufficiently permanent to comprise a physical taking); see also Hendler, 952 F.2d at 1376 (finding that groundwater monitoring wells were permanent in nature given their structure)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "952 F.2d 1376, 1376",
"parenthetical": "finding that groundwater monitoring wells were permanent in nature given their structure",
"sentence": "See Loretto, 458 U.S. at 422, 102 S.Ct. 3164 (finding cables attached by screws and nails and a box attached by bolts to be sufficiently permanent to comprise a physical taking); see also Hendler, 952 F.2d at 1376 (finding that groundwater monitoring wells were permanent in nature given their structure)."
} | 3,789,290 | a |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.