context
stringlengths 58
1.13k
| citation_a
dict | citation_b
dict | case_id
int64 475
12.5M
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
The fraudulent letter that Kipta used to back her deposits stated that she had -reserves of $800,000.00, an amount more than sufficient to cover the deposits into the First Chicago account. There was nothing to limit the amount of funds available for withdrawal, and the corresponding potential for loss by First Chicago, to less than the total amount deposited into the account. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "63 F.3d 505, 513",
"parenthetical": "holding that the amount that a defendant made available to himself by way of fraudulent deposits demonstrated the amount of loss intended",
"sentence": "See United States v. Yusufu, 63 F.3d 505, 513 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that the amount that a defendant made available to himself by way of fraudulent deposits demonstrated the amount of loss intended); see also United States v. Bonanno, 146 F.3d 502, 509-10 (7th Cir.1998) (“[T]he relevant inquiry is not ‘How much would the defendants probably have gotten away with?’, but, rather, ‘How many dollars did the culprits’ scheme put at risk?’.”). Furthermore, it is undisputed that Kipta unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate her final deposit of $45,000.00 into a cashier’s check."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "146 F.3d 502, 509-10",
"parenthetical": "\"[T]he relevant inquiry is not 'How much would the defendants probably have gotten away with?', but, rather, 'How many dollars did the culprits' scheme put at risk?'.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Yusufu, 63 F.3d 505, 513 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that the amount that a defendant made available to himself by way of fraudulent deposits demonstrated the amount of loss intended); see also United States v. Bonanno, 146 F.3d 502, 509-10 (7th Cir.1998) (“[T]he relevant inquiry is not ‘How much would the defendants probably have gotten away with?’, but, rather, ‘How many dollars did the culprits’ scheme put at risk?’.”). Furthermore, it is undisputed that Kipta unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate her final deposit of $45,000.00 into a cashier’s check."
} | 1,747,603 | a |
While this case is not a criminal action like Rodriguez, the facts here are similar in that Agilysys had a policy that authorized Hall to access the internet for business purposes only. And Plaintiff alleges that Hall exceeded this authorization when he accessed the internet to send Agilysys information to his personal email account. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "628 F.3d 1263, 1263",
"parenthetical": "company policy restricted employee's authorization to access certain information and the employee admitted that he accessed the information",
"sentence": "See Rodriguez, 628 F.3d at 1263 (company policy restricted employee’s authorization to access certain information and the employee admitted that he accessed the information); IPC Sys., Inc., 2012 WL 12872028, at *6 (relying on Rodriguez and denying dismissal of CFAA claim because fact questions remained about the purpose for which an employee accessed information and whether the employee exceeded his authorized access); cf. Aquent LLC v. Stapleton, 65 F.Supp.3d 1339, 1346 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (finding company policy that required the employee to keep information confidential and to use information for business purposes only akin to the policy in Rodriguez and concluding that- the plaintiff stated a claim under the CFAA that the employee exceeded her authorization)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "65 F.Supp.3d 1339, 1346",
"parenthetical": "finding company policy that required the employee to keep information confidential and to use information for business purposes only akin to the policy in Rodriguez and concluding that- the plaintiff stated a claim under the CFAA that the employee exceeded her authorization",
"sentence": "See Rodriguez, 628 F.3d at 1263 (company policy restricted employee’s authorization to access certain information and the employee admitted that he accessed the information); IPC Sys., Inc., 2012 WL 12872028, at *6 (relying on Rodriguez and denying dismissal of CFAA claim because fact questions remained about the purpose for which an employee accessed information and whether the employee exceeded his authorized access); cf. Aquent LLC v. Stapleton, 65 F.Supp.3d 1339, 1346 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (finding company policy that required the employee to keep information confidential and to use information for business purposes only akin to the policy in Rodriguez and concluding that- the plaintiff stated a claim under the CFAA that the employee exceeded her authorization)."
} | 12,273,880 | a |
While this case is not a criminal action like Rodriguez, the facts here are similar in that Agilysys had a policy that authorized Hall to access the internet for business purposes only. And Plaintiff alleges that Hall exceeded this authorization when he accessed the internet to send Agilysys information to his personal email account. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "2012 WL 12872028, at *6",
"parenthetical": "relying on Rodriguez and denying dismissal of CFAA claim because fact questions remained about the purpose for which an employee accessed information and whether the employee exceeded his authorized access",
"sentence": "See Rodriguez, 628 F.3d at 1263 (company policy restricted employee’s authorization to access certain information and the employee admitted that he accessed the information); IPC Sys., Inc., 2012 WL 12872028, at *6 (relying on Rodriguez and denying dismissal of CFAA claim because fact questions remained about the purpose for which an employee accessed information and whether the employee exceeded his authorized access); cf. Aquent LLC v. Stapleton, 65 F.Supp.3d 1339, 1346 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (finding company policy that required the employee to keep information confidential and to use information for business purposes only akin to the policy in Rodriguez and concluding that- the plaintiff stated a claim under the CFAA that the employee exceeded her authorization)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "65 F.Supp.3d 1339, 1346",
"parenthetical": "finding company policy that required the employee to keep information confidential and to use information for business purposes only akin to the policy in Rodriguez and concluding that- the plaintiff stated a claim under the CFAA that the employee exceeded her authorization",
"sentence": "See Rodriguez, 628 F.3d at 1263 (company policy restricted employee’s authorization to access certain information and the employee admitted that he accessed the information); IPC Sys., Inc., 2012 WL 12872028, at *6 (relying on Rodriguez and denying dismissal of CFAA claim because fact questions remained about the purpose for which an employee accessed information and whether the employee exceeded his authorized access); cf. Aquent LLC v. Stapleton, 65 F.Supp.3d 1339, 1346 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (finding company policy that required the employee to keep information confidential and to use information for business purposes only akin to the policy in Rodriguez and concluding that- the plaintiff stated a claim under the CFAA that the employee exceeded her authorization)."
} | 12,273,880 | a |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant's apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant's motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful \"community caretaking function\" as (i",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | 401,263 | a |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant's apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant's motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful \"community caretaking function\" as (i",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry \"to protect the property\" was deemed proper",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry \"to protect the property\" was deemed proper",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful \"community caretaking function\" as (i",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry \"to protect the property\" was deemed proper",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry \"to protect the property\" was deemed proper",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful \"community caretaking function\" as (i",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | 401,263 | a |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | 401,263 | a |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful \"community caretaking function\" as (i",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | 401,263 | a |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful \"community caretaking function\" as (i",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | 401,263 | a |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it \"would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful \"community caretaking function\" as (i",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | 401,263 | a |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it \"would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful \"community caretaking function\" as (i",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657",
"parenthetical": "where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it \"would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657",
"parenthetical": "where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it \"would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful \"community caretaking function\" as (i",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it \"would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it \"would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | 401,263 | a |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful \"community caretaking function\" as (i",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police can enter where there is \"probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police can enter where there is \"probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | 401,263 | a |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful \"community caretaking function\" as (i",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "646 A.2d 376, 382",
"parenthetical": "police can enter where there is \"probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "646 A.2d 376, 382",
"parenthetical": "police can enter where there is \"probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful \"community caretaking function\" as (i",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | 401,263 | a |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | 401,263 | a |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding lower court's conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer \"had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful \"community caretaking function\" as (i",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | 401,263 | a |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding lower court's conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer \"had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful \"community caretaking function\" as (i",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "958 P.2d 690, 694",
"parenthetical": "upholding lower court's conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer \"had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
The established and well-delineated exception to the requirement for a warrant in circumstances involving recently burglarized premises is discussed in numerous cases which we set forth in ascending chronological order. | {
"signal": "but cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.",
"sentence": "But cf. United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1993) (where neighbors said the suspected burglars departed by car over an hour earlier, police looking in basement window of residence thought to have been burglarized constituted an illegal search despite claim police engaged in lawful “community caretaking function” as (i) warrantless search for such reason still requires “exigent circumstances” not present here given passage of time; and (ii) even if police trying to act for householder’s benefit, that person is still entitled to protection of the Fourth Amendment); United, States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1980), (police entry unlawful where neighbor who was asked by defendant to watch his house trailer while defendant was away saw defendant depart and leave front door open and called police when door still open one day later but there was no sign of forced entry.)"
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "958 P.2d 690, 694",
"parenthetical": "upholding lower court's conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer \"had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir.1973) (where police responded to a radio call reporting breaking and entering at defendant’s apartment, found the door to the apartment pried open, and entered to search for a burglar, defendant’s motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in plain view, held properly denied); State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (1979) (where neighbor reported to police that someone was tampering with window of trailer home and said trailer door always locked, and officer found door unlocked, entry “to protect the property” was deemed proper); State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I.1983) (entry by police lawful where police found apartment door ajar and apartment appeared to have been ransacked); Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir.1984) (police could enter unoccupied house after reports of juvenile breaking into house to obtain drugs); United States v. Dart, 747 F.2d 263 (4th Cir.1984) (police properly entered units of self-storage warehouse complex upon finding locks sawed off and doors forced open); People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal.Rptr. 654, 657, 720 P.2d 2 (1986) (where neighbor reported burglary and officer who responded saw open window and TV and other valuable property inside, it “would have been poor police work indeed for an officer to fail to investigate under circumstances suggesting a crime in progress.”); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 646 A.2d 376, 382 (1994) (police can enter where there is “probable cause to believe that burglary is either in progress or recently has been committed,”); United States v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.1995) (police lawfully entered premises after security alarm had been activated, found unlocked door on rear deck but no response to efforts to communicate with anyone who might be inside); State v. Keating, 288 Mont. 447, 958 P.2d 690, 694 (1998) (upholding lower court’s conclusion that when officer on routine patrol saw individual with known criminal record leave a business at 3:30 a.m., found his explanation suspicious, and door of business open, officer “had every right to enter the building and make sure that it was secure and that no burglary was going on.”)."
} | 401,263 | b |
Plaintiff also advances claims for what appear to be medical negligence and employment discrimination by the VA. These claims are separate and distinct from his claims for benefits and are not governed by the VJRA. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "678 F.3d 1023, 1023",
"parenthetical": "holding that district courts could consider FTCA claims alleging negligence against VA doctors because it would no't have any effect on benefits",
"sentence": "See Shinseki, 678 F.3d at 1023 (holding that district courts could consider FTCA claims alleging negligence against VA doctors because it would no't have any effect on benefits); see also generally Slater, 175 Fed.Appx. 300 (recognizing the difference between claims relating to benefits and administrative tort claims)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "recognizing the difference between claims relating to benefits and administrative tort claims",
"sentence": "See Shinseki, 678 F.3d at 1023 (holding that district courts could consider FTCA claims alleging negligence against VA doctors because it would no't have any effect on benefits); see also generally Slater, 175 Fed.Appx. 300 (recognizing the difference between claims relating to benefits and administrative tort claims)."
} | 12,143,578 | a |
He stated that he would have objected to the method of selection had he believed improprieties existed. This is not a case where counsel inadvertently failed to object or where counsel lacked knowledge of the facts or law to make the objection. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "468 U.S. 1, 16",
"parenthetical": "\"[W]here a constitutional claim is so novel that its legal basis is not reasonably available to counsel, a defendant has cause for his failure to raise the claim in accordance with applicable state procedures.\"",
"sentence": "Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 16, 104 S.Ct. 2901, 2910, 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (“[W]here a constitutional claim is so novel that its legal basis is not reasonably available to counsel, a defendant has cause for his failure to raise the claim in accordance with applicable state procedures.”); see also Dietz v. Solem, 677 F.2d 672, 675 (8th Cir.1982) (no cause found when defense counsel had available at the time of trial the constitutional basis for an objection but failed to object anyway)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "677 F.2d 672, 675",
"parenthetical": "no cause found when defense counsel had available at the time of trial the constitutional basis for an objection but failed to object anyway",
"sentence": "Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 16, 104 S.Ct. 2901, 2910, 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (“[W]here a constitutional claim is so novel that its legal basis is not reasonably available to counsel, a defendant has cause for his failure to raise the claim in accordance with applicable state procedures.”); see also Dietz v. Solem, 677 F.2d 672, 675 (8th Cir.1982) (no cause found when defense counsel had available at the time of trial the constitutional basis for an objection but failed to object anyway)."
} | 1,111,469 | a |
He stated that he would have objected to the method of selection had he believed improprieties existed. This is not a case where counsel inadvertently failed to object or where counsel lacked knowledge of the facts or law to make the objection. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "677 F.2d 672, 675",
"parenthetical": "no cause found when defense counsel had available at the time of trial the constitutional basis for an objection but failed to object anyway",
"sentence": "Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 16, 104 S.Ct. 2901, 2910, 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (“[W]here a constitutional claim is so novel that its legal basis is not reasonably available to counsel, a defendant has cause for his failure to raise the claim in accordance with applicable state procedures.”); see also Dietz v. Solem, 677 F.2d 672, 675 (8th Cir.1982) (no cause found when defense counsel had available at the time of trial the constitutional basis for an objection but failed to object anyway)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "104 S.Ct. 2901, 2910",
"parenthetical": "\"[W]here a constitutional claim is so novel that its legal basis is not reasonably available to counsel, a defendant has cause for his failure to raise the claim in accordance with applicable state procedures.\"",
"sentence": "Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 16, 104 S.Ct. 2901, 2910, 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (“[W]here a constitutional claim is so novel that its legal basis is not reasonably available to counsel, a defendant has cause for his failure to raise the claim in accordance with applicable state procedures.”); see also Dietz v. Solem, 677 F.2d 672, 675 (8th Cir.1982) (no cause found when defense counsel had available at the time of trial the constitutional basis for an objection but failed to object anyway)."
} | 1,111,469 | b |
He stated that he would have objected to the method of selection had he believed improprieties existed. This is not a case where counsel inadvertently failed to object or where counsel lacked knowledge of the facts or law to make the objection. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[W]here a constitutional claim is so novel that its legal basis is not reasonably available to counsel, a defendant has cause for his failure to raise the claim in accordance with applicable state procedures.\"",
"sentence": "Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 16, 104 S.Ct. 2901, 2910, 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (“[W]here a constitutional claim is so novel that its legal basis is not reasonably available to counsel, a defendant has cause for his failure to raise the claim in accordance with applicable state procedures.”); see also Dietz v. Solem, 677 F.2d 672, 675 (8th Cir.1982) (no cause found when defense counsel had available at the time of trial the constitutional basis for an objection but failed to object anyway)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "677 F.2d 672, 675",
"parenthetical": "no cause found when defense counsel had available at the time of trial the constitutional basis for an objection but failed to object anyway",
"sentence": "Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 16, 104 S.Ct. 2901, 2910, 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (“[W]here a constitutional claim is so novel that its legal basis is not reasonably available to counsel, a defendant has cause for his failure to raise the claim in accordance with applicable state procedures.”); see also Dietz v. Solem, 677 F.2d 672, 675 (8th Cir.1982) (no cause found when defense counsel had available at the time of trial the constitutional basis for an objection but failed to object anyway)."
} | 1,111,469 | a |
The Third Circuit has rejected the proposition that nexus is required without expressly distinguishing between stateless and foreign vessels. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "993 F.2d 1052, 1056",
"parenthetical": "holding that no nexus was required in a determination involving a stateless vessel",
"sentence": "See United States v. Martinez-Hidalgo, 993 F.2d 1052, 1056 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that no nexus was required in a determination involving a stateless vessel); see also United States v. Perez Oviedo, 281 F.3d 400, 403 (3d Cir.2002) (noting that Martinez-Hidalgo had expressly rejected our approach and holding that it was not arbitrary or fundamentally unfair to exert jurisdiction when the flag nation consents to application of the MDLEA)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "281 F.3d 400, 403",
"parenthetical": "noting that Martinez-Hidalgo had expressly rejected our approach and holding that it was not arbitrary or fundamentally unfair to exert jurisdiction when the flag nation consents to application of the MDLEA",
"sentence": "See United States v. Martinez-Hidalgo, 993 F.2d 1052, 1056 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that no nexus was required in a determination involving a stateless vessel); see also United States v. Perez Oviedo, 281 F.3d 400, 403 (3d Cir.2002) (noting that Martinez-Hidalgo had expressly rejected our approach and holding that it was not arbitrary or fundamentally unfair to exert jurisdiction when the flag nation consents to application of the MDLEA)."
} | 8,456,172 | a |
Vargas-Miranda chose to approach the officer and begin a conversation. Under the totality of these circumstances, a reasonable person in Vargas-Miranda's position would have believed he was free to refuse the officer's requests for information and continue on with his travel, and a reasonable officer would believe this defendant was voluntarily cooperating with the officer's requests. Vargas-Miranda was not unlawfully seized when he responded to Deputy Sheriff Brown's request to produce his drivers license and the vehicle information. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that \"asking defendant for identification\" was not a seizure absent evidence that the officer \"used language or a tone of voice indicating that compliance might be compelled\"",
"sentence": "See also, United States v. Granillo, 288 F.3d 1071 (8th Cir.2002)(holding that “asking defendant for identification” was not a seizure absent evidence that the officer “used language or a tone of voice indicating that compliance might be compelled”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "reversing district court's ruling suppressing evidence and holding that the presence of a marked police car and use of police car's computer to check person's name did not transform a consensual encounter into \"seizure\" where the incident occurred on public sidewalk, detectives made no demand, gave no intimidating commands, displayed no weapons, and used neither threats nor force",
"sentence": "U.S. v. Locklin, 943 F.2d 838 (8th Cir.1991)(reversing district court’s ruling suppressing evidence and holding that the presence of a marked police car and use of police car’s computer to check person’s name did not transform a consensual encounter into “seizure” where the incident occurred on public sidewalk, detectives made no demand, gave no intimidating commands, displayed no weapons, and used neither threats nor force)."
} | 3,667,578 | b |
As to the reasonableness of attorneys' fees and expenses under section 506(b), the ultimate burden of persuasion is on the secured creditor seeking payment. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "burden of persuasion on claimant once claim objector meets burden of going forward with evidence sufficient to rebut claimant's proof of claim",
"sentence": "Cf. Matter of DeLorean Motor Co., 39 B.R. 157 (Bktcy.E.D.Mich.1984) (burden of persuasion on claimant once claim objector meets burden of going forward with evidence sufficient to rebut claimant’s proof of claim); In re WHET, Inc., 33 B.R. 424 (Bktcy.D.Mass.1983) (burden of proof as opposed to burden of going forward with evidence is always on claimant). Conse quently, Barclays has the burden of demonstrating upon a preponderance of the evidence that the fees and expenses objected to by the Debtor are reasonable."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "secured creditor's failure to provide documentation pursuant to former Bankruptcy Rule 219(a",
"sentence": "See Matter of Kennedy Mortgage Co., 23 B.R. 466 (Bktcy.D.N.J.1982) (secured creditor’s failure to provide documentation pursuant to former Bankruptcy Rule 219(a) (currently Bankruptcy Rule 2016) held to preclude award of fees); In re H.P. Tool Manufacturing Corp., 12 B.R. 600 (Bktcy.E.D.Pa.1981) (absent evidence of reasonableness of fees as required by former Bankruptcy Rule 219(a), award of fees pursuant to section 506(d) not possible)."
} | 6,552,688 | b |
As to the reasonableness of attorneys' fees and expenses under section 506(b), the ultimate burden of persuasion is on the secured creditor seeking payment. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "burden of proof as opposed to burden of going forward with evidence is always on claimant",
"sentence": "Cf. Matter of DeLorean Motor Co., 39 B.R. 157 (Bktcy.E.D.Mich.1984) (burden of persuasion on claimant once claim objector meets burden of going forward with evidence sufficient to rebut claimant’s proof of claim); In re WHET, Inc., 33 B.R. 424 (Bktcy.D.Mass.1983) (burden of proof as opposed to burden of going forward with evidence is always on claimant). Conse quently, Barclays has the burden of demonstrating upon a preponderance of the evidence that the fees and expenses objected to by the Debtor are reasonable."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "secured creditor's failure to provide documentation pursuant to former Bankruptcy Rule 219(a",
"sentence": "See Matter of Kennedy Mortgage Co., 23 B.R. 466 (Bktcy.D.N.J.1982) (secured creditor’s failure to provide documentation pursuant to former Bankruptcy Rule 219(a) (currently Bankruptcy Rule 2016) held to preclude award of fees); In re H.P. Tool Manufacturing Corp., 12 B.R. 600 (Bktcy.E.D.Pa.1981) (absent evidence of reasonableness of fees as required by former Bankruptcy Rule 219(a), award of fees pursuant to section 506(d) not possible)."
} | 6,552,688 | b |
As to the reasonableness of attorneys' fees and expenses under section 506(b), the ultimate burden of persuasion is on the secured creditor seeking payment. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "burden of persuasion on claimant once claim objector meets burden of going forward with evidence sufficient to rebut claimant's proof of claim",
"sentence": "Cf. Matter of DeLorean Motor Co., 39 B.R. 157 (Bktcy.E.D.Mich.1984) (burden of persuasion on claimant once claim objector meets burden of going forward with evidence sufficient to rebut claimant’s proof of claim); In re WHET, Inc., 33 B.R. 424 (Bktcy.D.Mass.1983) (burden of proof as opposed to burden of going forward with evidence is always on claimant). Conse quently, Barclays has the burden of demonstrating upon a preponderance of the evidence that the fees and expenses objected to by the Debtor are reasonable."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "absent evidence of reasonableness of fees as required by former Bankruptcy Rule 219(a",
"sentence": "See Matter of Kennedy Mortgage Co., 23 B.R. 466 (Bktcy.D.N.J.1982) (secured creditor’s failure to provide documentation pursuant to former Bankruptcy Rule 219(a) (currently Bankruptcy Rule 2016) held to preclude award of fees); In re H.P. Tool Manufacturing Corp., 12 B.R. 600 (Bktcy.E.D.Pa.1981) (absent evidence of reasonableness of fees as required by former Bankruptcy Rule 219(a), award of fees pursuant to section 506(d) not possible)."
} | 6,552,688 | b |
As to the reasonableness of attorneys' fees and expenses under section 506(b), the ultimate burden of persuasion is on the secured creditor seeking payment. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "absent evidence of reasonableness of fees as required by former Bankruptcy Rule 219(a",
"sentence": "See Matter of Kennedy Mortgage Co., 23 B.R. 466 (Bktcy.D.N.J.1982) (secured creditor’s failure to provide documentation pursuant to former Bankruptcy Rule 219(a) (currently Bankruptcy Rule 2016) held to preclude award of fees); In re H.P. Tool Manufacturing Corp., 12 B.R. 600 (Bktcy.E.D.Pa.1981) (absent evidence of reasonableness of fees as required by former Bankruptcy Rule 219(a), award of fees pursuant to section 506(d) not possible)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "burden of proof as opposed to burden of going forward with evidence is always on claimant",
"sentence": "Cf. Matter of DeLorean Motor Co., 39 B.R. 157 (Bktcy.E.D.Mich.1984) (burden of persuasion on claimant once claim objector meets burden of going forward with evidence sufficient to rebut claimant’s proof of claim); In re WHET, Inc., 33 B.R. 424 (Bktcy.D.Mass.1983) (burden of proof as opposed to burden of going forward with evidence is always on claimant). Conse quently, Barclays has the burden of demonstrating upon a preponderance of the evidence that the fees and expenses objected to by the Debtor are reasonable."
} | 6,552,688 | a |
*When an employee disclaims any intent to file a charge, the request does not trigger any investigation or attempt at a resolution. Allowing the employee to bring suit against her employer without first exhausting those .administrative remedies would frustrate the intent behind both federal and state statutory schemes. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "552 U.S. 401, 401",
"parenthetical": "observing that treating every completed questionnaire as a charge would thwart \"Congress's expressed desire that the EEOC [also] act as an information provider and try to settle employment disputes through informal means\"",
"sentence": "See Patterson, 491 U.S. at 180-81, 109 S.Ct. at 2374-75; Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796, 809, 811-12 (Tex.2010) (holding that claim for sexual harassment exists only under statute, which pre-empts any common law claim based on allegations giving rise to statutory claim; plaintiff cannot evade statutory exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement and other unique features of Chapter 21 by bringing suit under common-law theory); City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147, 154-55 (Tex.2008) (declaring that employee could not sidestep Chapter 21’s administrative exhaustion requirement by bringing retaliation claim solely under Whistle-blower Act and holding that trial court erred in denying city’s plea to jurisdiction); see also Holowecki, 552 U.S. at 401, 128 S.Ct. at 1157 (observing that treating every completed questionnaire as a charge would thwart “Congress’s expressed desire that the EEOC [also] act as an information provider and try to settle employment disputes through informal means”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "259 S.W.3d 147, 154-55",
"parenthetical": "declaring that employee could not sidestep Chapter 21's administrative exhaustion requirement by bringing retaliation claim solely under Whistle-blower Act and holding that trial court erred in denying city's plea to jurisdiction",
"sentence": "See Patterson, 491 U.S. at 180-81, 109 S.Ct. at 2374-75; Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796, 809, 811-12 (Tex.2010) (holding that claim for sexual harassment exists only under statute, which pre-empts any common law claim based on allegations giving rise to statutory claim; plaintiff cannot evade statutory exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement and other unique features of Chapter 21 by bringing suit under common-law theory); City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147, 154-55 (Tex.2008) (declaring that employee could not sidestep Chapter 21’s administrative exhaustion requirement by bringing retaliation claim solely under Whistle-blower Act and holding that trial court erred in denying city’s plea to jurisdiction); see also Holowecki, 552 U.S. at 401, 128 S.Ct. at 1157 (observing that treating every completed questionnaire as a charge would thwart “Congress’s expressed desire that the EEOC [also] act as an information provider and try to settle employment disputes through informal means”)."
} | 6,809,570 | b |
*When an employee disclaims any intent to file a charge, the request does not trigger any investigation or attempt at a resolution. Allowing the employee to bring suit against her employer without first exhausting those .administrative remedies would frustrate the intent behind both federal and state statutory schemes. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "259 S.W.3d 147, 154-55",
"parenthetical": "declaring that employee could not sidestep Chapter 21's administrative exhaustion requirement by bringing retaliation claim solely under Whistle-blower Act and holding that trial court erred in denying city's plea to jurisdiction",
"sentence": "See Patterson, 491 U.S. at 180-81, 109 S.Ct. at 2374-75; Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796, 809, 811-12 (Tex.2010) (holding that claim for sexual harassment exists only under statute, which pre-empts any common law claim based on allegations giving rise to statutory claim; plaintiff cannot evade statutory exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement and other unique features of Chapter 21 by bringing suit under common-law theory); City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147, 154-55 (Tex.2008) (declaring that employee could not sidestep Chapter 21’s administrative exhaustion requirement by bringing retaliation claim solely under Whistle-blower Act and holding that trial court erred in denying city’s plea to jurisdiction); see also Holowecki, 552 U.S. at 401, 128 S.Ct. at 1157 (observing that treating every completed questionnaire as a charge would thwart “Congress’s expressed desire that the EEOC [also] act as an information provider and try to settle employment disputes through informal means”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "128 S.Ct. 1157, 1157",
"parenthetical": "observing that treating every completed questionnaire as a charge would thwart \"Congress's expressed desire that the EEOC [also] act as an information provider and try to settle employment disputes through informal means\"",
"sentence": "See Patterson, 491 U.S. at 180-81, 109 S.Ct. at 2374-75; Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796, 809, 811-12 (Tex.2010) (holding that claim for sexual harassment exists only under statute, which pre-empts any common law claim based on allegations giving rise to statutory claim; plaintiff cannot evade statutory exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement and other unique features of Chapter 21 by bringing suit under common-law theory); City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147, 154-55 (Tex.2008) (declaring that employee could not sidestep Chapter 21’s administrative exhaustion requirement by bringing retaliation claim solely under Whistle-blower Act and holding that trial court erred in denying city’s plea to jurisdiction); see also Holowecki, 552 U.S. at 401, 128 S.Ct. at 1157 (observing that treating every completed questionnaire as a charge would thwart “Congress’s expressed desire that the EEOC [also] act as an information provider and try to settle employment disputes through informal means”)."
} | 6,809,570 | a |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "491 U.S. 274, 285",
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates\" under 5 U.S.C. SS 504",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | a |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010",
"parenthetical": "\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates\" under 5 U.S.C. SS 504",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "491 U.S. 274, 285",
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | b |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "491 U.S. 274, 285",
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates\" under 5 U.S.C. SS 504",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | a |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "491 U.S. 274, 285",
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "157 F.3d 1243, 1249",
"parenthetical": "section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined\" using lodestar method",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | a |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2008 WL 4146200, *3",
"parenthetical": "\"affirmation\" setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants\" considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "491 U.S. 274, 285",
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | b |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "491 U.S. 274, 285",
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "68 F.3d 447, 453",
"parenthetical": "courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney's work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | a |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates\" under 5 U.S.C. SS 504",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | a |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010",
"parenthetical": "\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates\" under 5 U.S.C. SS 504",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | a |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates\" under 5 U.S.C. SS 504",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | a |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "157 F.3d 1243, 1249",
"parenthetical": "section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined\" using lodestar method",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | b |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2008 WL 4146200, *3",
"parenthetical": "\"affirmation\" setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants\" considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | b |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "68 F.3d 447, 453",
"parenthetical": "courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney's work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | b |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates\" under 5 U.S.C. SS 504",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | a |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010",
"parenthetical": "\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates\" under 5 U.S.C. SS 504",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | a |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates\" under 5 U.S.C. SS 504",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | a |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "157 F.3d 1243, 1249",
"parenthetical": "section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined\" using lodestar method",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | b |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2008 WL 4146200, *3",
"parenthetical": "\"affirmation\" setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants\" considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | b |
Alternatively, construing the factual record based on Pontikes' affidavit, this court finds that the "legal assistants" are either law students or paralegals who worked under the direct supervision of an attorney, i.e., Pontikes. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "68 F.3d 447, 453",
"parenthetical": "courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney's work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a 'reasonable attorney's fee' cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar\"",
"sentence": "See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (\"a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar”); see also Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 128 S.Ct. 2007, 2010, 170 L.Ed.2d 960 (2008) (\"fees for paralegal services must be recoverable at prevailing market rates” under 5 U.S.C. § 504); Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1998) (section 1988 \"fees for attorneys, law clerks, and legal assistants are all determined” using lodestar method); Erath v. Academic Stone Setters, Inc., 2008 WL 4146200, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (\"affirmation” setting out \"description of the billing rates as ... $75 per hour for legal assistants” considered reasonable and recoverable albeit in different community); see also Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 453 (Fed.Cir.1995) (courts approve \"inclusion of fees for paralegals, law clerks, and law students ... on the theory that their work con tributed to their supervising attorney’s work product, was traditionally done and billed by attorneys, and could be done effectively by nonattorneys under supervision for a lower rate, thereby lowering overall litigation costs”); see, e.g., Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d at 87 (awarding fees to “paralegals and law students”)."
} | 3,783,614 | b |
However, the vast majority,- either expressly or implicitly, understand the word "sureties" in the phrase "sufficient sureties," to encompass a variety of bond forms, including cash. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "666 N.W.2d 583, 583",
"parenthetical": "\"the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety-- commercial bonding -- by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 583 (“the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety— commercial bonding — by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause”); State v. Brooks, supra, 604 N.W.2d at 353 (the word “sureties” “encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires”); see also Ex parte Singleton, supra, 902 So.2d at 135 (quoting State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 581-83: “[w]e are also confident that the. framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety”); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by ‘sufficient sureties”’’); Burton v. Tomlinson, 19 Or.App. 247, 527 P.2d 123, 126 (1974) (“Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.”); cf. Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 474 P.2d at 828; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1993); but see State v. Golden, supra, 546 So.2d at 503 (limiting the “sufficient sureties” clause to commercial sureties)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by 'sufficient sureties\"''",
"sentence": "See State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 583 (“the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety— commercial bonding — by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause”); State v. Brooks, supra, 604 N.W.2d at 353 (the word “sureties” “encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires”); see also Ex parte Singleton, supra, 902 So.2d at 135 (quoting State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 581-83: “[w]e are also confident that the. framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety”); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by ‘sufficient sureties”’’); Burton v. Tomlinson, 19 Or.App. 247, 527 P.2d 123, 126 (1974) (“Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.”); cf. Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 474 P.2d at 828; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1993); but see State v. Golden, supra, 546 So.2d at 503 (limiting the “sufficient sureties” clause to commercial sureties)."
} | 8,999,022 | a |
However, the vast majority,- either expressly or implicitly, understand the word "sureties" in the phrase "sufficient sureties," to encompass a variety of bond forms, including cash. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "666 N.W.2d 583, 583",
"parenthetical": "\"the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety-- commercial bonding -- by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 583 (“the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety— commercial bonding — by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause”); State v. Brooks, supra, 604 N.W.2d at 353 (the word “sureties” “encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires”); see also Ex parte Singleton, supra, 902 So.2d at 135 (quoting State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 581-83: “[w]e are also confident that the. framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety”); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by ‘sufficient sureties”’’); Burton v. Tomlinson, 19 Or.App. 247, 527 P.2d 123, 126 (1974) (“Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.”); cf. Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 474 P.2d at 828; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1993); but see State v. Golden, supra, 546 So.2d at 503 (limiting the “sufficient sureties” clause to commercial sureties)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "217 N.E.2d 803, 806",
"parenthetical": "\"the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by 'sufficient sureties\"''",
"sentence": "See State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 583 (“the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety— commercial bonding — by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause”); State v. Brooks, supra, 604 N.W.2d at 353 (the word “sureties” “encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires”); see also Ex parte Singleton, supra, 902 So.2d at 135 (quoting State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 581-83: “[w]e are also confident that the. framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety”); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by ‘sufficient sureties”’’); Burton v. Tomlinson, 19 Or.App. 247, 527 P.2d 123, 126 (1974) (“Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.”); cf. Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 474 P.2d at 828; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1993); but see State v. Golden, supra, 546 So.2d at 503 (limiting the “sufficient sureties” clause to commercial sureties)."
} | 8,999,022 | a |
However, the vast majority,- either expressly or implicitly, understand the word "sureties" in the phrase "sufficient sureties," to encompass a variety of bond forms, including cash. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 583 (“the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety— commercial bonding — by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause”); State v. Brooks, supra, 604 N.W.2d at 353 (the word “sureties” “encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires”); see also Ex parte Singleton, supra, 902 So.2d at 135 (quoting State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 581-83: “[w]e are also confident that the. framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety”); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by ‘sufficient sureties”’’); Burton v. Tomlinson, 19 Or.App. 247, 527 P.2d 123, 126 (1974) (“Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.”); cf. Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 474 P.2d at 828; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1993); but see State v. Golden, supra, 546 So.2d at 503 (limiting the “sufficient sureties” clause to commercial sureties)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "666 N.W.2d 583, 583",
"parenthetical": "\"the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety-- commercial bonding -- by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 583 (“the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety— commercial bonding — by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause”); State v. Brooks, supra, 604 N.W.2d at 353 (the word “sureties” “encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires”); see also Ex parte Singleton, supra, 902 So.2d at 135 (quoting State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 581-83: “[w]e are also confident that the. framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety”); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by ‘sufficient sureties”’’); Burton v. Tomlinson, 19 Or.App. 247, 527 P.2d 123, 126 (1974) (“Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.”); cf. Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 474 P.2d at 828; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1993); but see State v. Golden, supra, 546 So.2d at 503 (limiting the “sufficient sureties” clause to commercial sureties)."
} | 8,999,022 | b |
However, the vast majority,- either expressly or implicitly, understand the word "sureties" in the phrase "sufficient sureties," to encompass a variety of bond forms, including cash. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "666 N.W.2d 583, 583",
"parenthetical": "\"the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety-- commercial bonding -- by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 583 (“the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety— commercial bonding — by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause”); State v. Brooks, supra, 604 N.W.2d at 353 (the word “sureties” “encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires”); see also Ex parte Singleton, supra, 902 So.2d at 135 (quoting State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 581-83: “[w]e are also confident that the. framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety”); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by ‘sufficient sureties”’’); Burton v. Tomlinson, 19 Or.App. 247, 527 P.2d 123, 126 (1974) (“Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.”); cf. Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 474 P.2d at 828; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1993); but see State v. Golden, supra, 546 So.2d at 503 (limiting the “sufficient sureties” clause to commercial sureties)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "527 P.2d 123, 126",
"parenthetical": "\"Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 583 (“the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety— commercial bonding — by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause”); State v. Brooks, supra, 604 N.W.2d at 353 (the word “sureties” “encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires”); see also Ex parte Singleton, supra, 902 So.2d at 135 (quoting State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 581-83: “[w]e are also confident that the. framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety”); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by ‘sufficient sureties”’’); Burton v. Tomlinson, 19 Or.App. 247, 527 P.2d 123, 126 (1974) (“Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.”); cf. Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 474 P.2d at 828; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1993); but see State v. Golden, supra, 546 So.2d at 503 (limiting the “sufficient sureties” clause to commercial sureties)."
} | 8,999,022 | a |
However, the vast majority,- either expressly or implicitly, understand the word "sureties" in the phrase "sufficient sureties," to encompass a variety of bond forms, including cash. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "604 N.W.2d 353, 353",
"parenthetical": "the word \"sureties\" \"encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 583 (“the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety— commercial bonding — by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause”); State v. Brooks, supra, 604 N.W.2d at 353 (the word “sureties” “encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires”); see also Ex parte Singleton, supra, 902 So.2d at 135 (quoting State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 581-83: “[w]e are also confident that the. framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety”); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by ‘sufficient sureties”’’); Burton v. Tomlinson, 19 Or.App. 247, 527 P.2d 123, 126 (1974) (“Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.”); cf. Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 474 P.2d at 828; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1993); but see State v. Golden, supra, 546 So.2d at 503 (limiting the “sufficient sureties” clause to commercial sureties)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by 'sufficient sureties\"''",
"sentence": "See State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 583 (“the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety— commercial bonding — by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause”); State v. Brooks, supra, 604 N.W.2d at 353 (the word “sureties” “encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires”); see also Ex parte Singleton, supra, 902 So.2d at 135 (quoting State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 581-83: “[w]e are also confident that the. framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety”); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by ‘sufficient sureties”’’); Burton v. Tomlinson, 19 Or.App. 247, 527 P.2d 123, 126 (1974) (“Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.”); cf. Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 474 P.2d at 828; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1993); but see State v. Golden, supra, 546 So.2d at 503 (limiting the “sufficient sureties” clause to commercial sureties)."
} | 8,999,022 | a |
However, the vast majority,- either expressly or implicitly, understand the word "sureties" in the phrase "sufficient sureties," to encompass a variety of bond forms, including cash. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "604 N.W.2d 353, 353",
"parenthetical": "the word \"sureties\" \"encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 583 (“the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety— commercial bonding — by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause”); State v. Brooks, supra, 604 N.W.2d at 353 (the word “sureties” “encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires”); see also Ex parte Singleton, supra, 902 So.2d at 135 (quoting State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 581-83: “[w]e are also confident that the. framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety”); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by ‘sufficient sureties”’’); Burton v. Tomlinson, 19 Or.App. 247, 527 P.2d 123, 126 (1974) (“Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.”); cf. Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 474 P.2d at 828; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1993); but see State v. Golden, supra, 546 So.2d at 503 (limiting the “sufficient sureties” clause to commercial sureties)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "217 N.E.2d 803, 806",
"parenthetical": "\"the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by 'sufficient sureties\"''",
"sentence": "See State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 583 (“the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety— commercial bonding — by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause”); State v. Brooks, supra, 604 N.W.2d at 353 (the word “sureties” “encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires”); see also Ex parte Singleton, supra, 902 So.2d at 135 (quoting State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 581-83: “[w]e are also confident that the. framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety”); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by ‘sufficient sureties”’’); Burton v. Tomlinson, 19 Or.App. 247, 527 P.2d 123, 126 (1974) (“Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.”); cf. Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 474 P.2d at 828; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1993); but see State v. Golden, supra, 546 So.2d at 503 (limiting the “sufficient sureties” clause to commercial sureties)."
} | 8,999,022 | a |
However, the vast majority,- either expressly or implicitly, understand the word "sureties" in the phrase "sufficient sureties," to encompass a variety of bond forms, including cash. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 583 (“the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety— commercial bonding — by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause”); State v. Brooks, supra, 604 N.W.2d at 353 (the word “sureties” “encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires”); see also Ex parte Singleton, supra, 902 So.2d at 135 (quoting State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 581-83: “[w]e are also confident that the. framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety”); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by ‘sufficient sureties”’’); Burton v. Tomlinson, 19 Or.App. 247, 527 P.2d 123, 126 (1974) (“Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.”); cf. Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 474 P.2d at 828; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1993); but see State v. Golden, supra, 546 So.2d at 503 (limiting the “sufficient sureties” clause to commercial sureties)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "604 N.W.2d 353, 353",
"parenthetical": "the word \"sureties\" \"encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 583 (“the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety— commercial bonding — by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause”); State v. Brooks, supra, 604 N.W.2d at 353 (the word “sureties” “encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires”); see also Ex parte Singleton, supra, 902 So.2d at 135 (quoting State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 581-83: “[w]e are also confident that the. framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety”); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by ‘sufficient sureties”’’); Burton v. Tomlinson, 19 Or.App. 247, 527 P.2d 123, 126 (1974) (“Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.”); cf. Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 474 P.2d at 828; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1993); but see State v. Golden, supra, 546 So.2d at 503 (limiting the “sufficient sureties” clause to commercial sureties)."
} | 8,999,022 | b |
However, the vast majority,- either expressly or implicitly, understand the word "sureties" in the phrase "sufficient sureties," to encompass a variety of bond forms, including cash. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "527 P.2d 123, 126",
"parenthetical": "\"Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 583 (“the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety— commercial bonding — by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause”); State v. Brooks, supra, 604 N.W.2d at 353 (the word “sureties” “encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires”); see also Ex parte Singleton, supra, 902 So.2d at 135 (quoting State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 581-83: “[w]e are also confident that the. framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety”); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by ‘sufficient sureties”’’); Burton v. Tomlinson, 19 Or.App. 247, 527 P.2d 123, 126 (1974) (“Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.”); cf. Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 474 P.2d at 828; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1993); but see State v. Golden, supra, 546 So.2d at 503 (limiting the “sufficient sureties” clause to commercial sureties)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "604 N.W.2d 353, 353",
"parenthetical": "the word \"sureties\" \"encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 583 (“the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety— commercial bonding — by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause”); State v. Brooks, supra, 604 N.W.2d at 353 (the word “sureties” “encompasses a broad array of methods to provide adequate assurance that an accused will appear as the court requires”); see also Ex parte Singleton, supra, 902 So.2d at 135 (quoting State v. Briggs, supra, 666 N.W.2d at 581-83: “[w]e are also confident that the. framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety”); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“the alternative methods of bail provided in [the statutes] do not violate the constitutional provision that all persons shall be bailable by ‘sufficient sureties”’’); Burton v. Tomlinson, 19 Or.App. 247, 527 P.2d 123, 126 (1974) (“Nowhere does it say that lawful release of a defendant may be accomplished only through the medium of sureties.”); cf. Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 474 P.2d at 828; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1993); but see State v. Golden, supra, 546 So.2d at 503 (limiting the “sufficient sureties” clause to commercial sureties)."
} | 8,999,022 | b |
Without making a determinative decision, we note that the practical application of SS 204b to plaintiff presents an instructive comparison to the case at bar. Unlike the current case, if SS 204b's seventy-percent rule had been applied to plaintiff, the statute's plain terms would have retroactively increased the length of plaintiffs minimum sentence. This, presumably, would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "569 U.S. 544, 544",
"parenthetical": "holding that retroactive application of advisory sentencing guidelines violated Ex Post Facto Clause because guidelines increased minimum sentencing range",
"sentence": "Peugh, 569 U.S. at 544, 133 S. Ct. at 2084 (holding that retroactive application of advisory sentencing guidelines violated Ex Post Facto Clause because guidelines increased minimum sentencing range); see also Puckett v. Abels, 684 So. 2d 671, 678 (Miss. 1996) (holding that statutory amendment requiring eighty-five percent of sentence be served before prisoner is eligible for parole is Ex Post Facto Clause violation)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "684 So. 2d 671, 678",
"parenthetical": "holding that statutory amendment requiring eighty-five percent of sentence be served before prisoner is eligible for parole is Ex Post Facto Clause violation",
"sentence": "Peugh, 569 U.S. at 544, 133 S. Ct. at 2084 (holding that retroactive application of advisory sentencing guidelines violated Ex Post Facto Clause because guidelines increased minimum sentencing range); see also Puckett v. Abels, 684 So. 2d 671, 678 (Miss. 1996) (holding that statutory amendment requiring eighty-five percent of sentence be served before prisoner is eligible for parole is Ex Post Facto Clause violation)."
} | 12,454,567 | a |
Without making a determinative decision, we note that the practical application of SS 204b to plaintiff presents an instructive comparison to the case at bar. Unlike the current case, if SS 204b's seventy-percent rule had been applied to plaintiff, the statute's plain terms would have retroactively increased the length of plaintiffs minimum sentence. This, presumably, would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "684 So. 2d 671, 678",
"parenthetical": "holding that statutory amendment requiring eighty-five percent of sentence be served before prisoner is eligible for parole is Ex Post Facto Clause violation",
"sentence": "Peugh, 569 U.S. at 544, 133 S. Ct. at 2084 (holding that retroactive application of advisory sentencing guidelines violated Ex Post Facto Clause because guidelines increased minimum sentencing range); see also Puckett v. Abels, 684 So. 2d 671, 678 (Miss. 1996) (holding that statutory amendment requiring eighty-five percent of sentence be served before prisoner is eligible for parole is Ex Post Facto Clause violation)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "133 S. Ct. 2084, 2084",
"parenthetical": "holding that retroactive application of advisory sentencing guidelines violated Ex Post Facto Clause because guidelines increased minimum sentencing range",
"sentence": "Peugh, 569 U.S. at 544, 133 S. Ct. at 2084 (holding that retroactive application of advisory sentencing guidelines violated Ex Post Facto Clause because guidelines increased minimum sentencing range); see also Puckett v. Abels, 684 So. 2d 671, 678 (Miss. 1996) (holding that statutory amendment requiring eighty-five percent of sentence be served before prisoner is eligible for parole is Ex Post Facto Clause violation)."
} | 12,454,567 | b |
This court has applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine numerous times in the criminal appeal context. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "187 F.3d 1219, 1220",
"parenthetical": "dismissing criminal appeal where defendant failed to report for supervised release following prison term and was declared a fugitive from justice",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. Hanzlicek, 187 F.3d 1219, 1220 (10th Cir.1999) (dismissing criminal appeal where defendant failed to report for supervised release following prison term and was declared a fugitive from justice); see also Brinlee v. Crisp, 608 F.2d 839, 856-57 (10th Cir.1979) (upholding denial of habeas corpus petition when state court dismissed criminal defendant’s appeal because he was a fugitive), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1047, 100 S.Ct. 737, 62 L.Ed.2d 733 (1980); Lopez v. Motley, 552 F.2d 682, 683 (10th Cir.1977) (same); Gonzales v. Stover, 575 F.2d 827, 828 (10th Cir.1978) (same); United States v. Swigart, 490 F.2d 914, 915 (10th Cir.1973) (federal criminal appeal); United States v. O’Neal, 453 F.2d 344, 345 (10th Cir.1972) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "608 F.2d 839, 856-57",
"parenthetical": "upholding denial of habeas corpus petition when state court dismissed criminal defendant's appeal because he was a fugitive",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. Hanzlicek, 187 F.3d 1219, 1220 (10th Cir.1999) (dismissing criminal appeal where defendant failed to report for supervised release following prison term and was declared a fugitive from justice); see also Brinlee v. Crisp, 608 F.2d 839, 856-57 (10th Cir.1979) (upholding denial of habeas corpus petition when state court dismissed criminal defendant’s appeal because he was a fugitive), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1047, 100 S.Ct. 737, 62 L.Ed.2d 733 (1980); Lopez v. Motley, 552 F.2d 682, 683 (10th Cir.1977) (same); Gonzales v. Stover, 575 F.2d 827, 828 (10th Cir.1978) (same); United States v. Swigart, 490 F.2d 914, 915 (10th Cir.1973) (federal criminal appeal); United States v. O’Neal, 453 F.2d 344, 345 (10th Cir.1972) (same)."
} | 3,657,034 | a |
This court has applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine numerous times in the criminal appeal context. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "187 F.3d 1219, 1220",
"parenthetical": "dismissing criminal appeal where defendant failed to report for supervised release following prison term and was declared a fugitive from justice",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. Hanzlicek, 187 F.3d 1219, 1220 (10th Cir.1999) (dismissing criminal appeal where defendant failed to report for supervised release following prison term and was declared a fugitive from justice); see also Brinlee v. Crisp, 608 F.2d 839, 856-57 (10th Cir.1979) (upholding denial of habeas corpus petition when state court dismissed criminal defendant’s appeal because he was a fugitive), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1047, 100 S.Ct. 737, 62 L.Ed.2d 733 (1980); Lopez v. Motley, 552 F.2d 682, 683 (10th Cir.1977) (same); Gonzales v. Stover, 575 F.2d 827, 828 (10th Cir.1978) (same); United States v. Swigart, 490 F.2d 914, 915 (10th Cir.1973) (federal criminal appeal); United States v. O’Neal, 453 F.2d 344, 345 (10th Cir.1972) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding denial of habeas corpus petition when state court dismissed criminal defendant's appeal because he was a fugitive",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. Hanzlicek, 187 F.3d 1219, 1220 (10th Cir.1999) (dismissing criminal appeal where defendant failed to report for supervised release following prison term and was declared a fugitive from justice); see also Brinlee v. Crisp, 608 F.2d 839, 856-57 (10th Cir.1979) (upholding denial of habeas corpus petition when state court dismissed criminal defendant’s appeal because he was a fugitive), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1047, 100 S.Ct. 737, 62 L.Ed.2d 733 (1980); Lopez v. Motley, 552 F.2d 682, 683 (10th Cir.1977) (same); Gonzales v. Stover, 575 F.2d 827, 828 (10th Cir.1978) (same); United States v. Swigart, 490 F.2d 914, 915 (10th Cir.1973) (federal criminal appeal); United States v. O’Neal, 453 F.2d 344, 345 (10th Cir.1972) (same)."
} | 3,657,034 | a |
This court has applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine numerous times in the criminal appeal context. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding denial of habeas corpus petition when state court dismissed criminal defendant's appeal because he was a fugitive",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. Hanzlicek, 187 F.3d 1219, 1220 (10th Cir.1999) (dismissing criminal appeal where defendant failed to report for supervised release following prison term and was declared a fugitive from justice); see also Brinlee v. Crisp, 608 F.2d 839, 856-57 (10th Cir.1979) (upholding denial of habeas corpus petition when state court dismissed criminal defendant’s appeal because he was a fugitive), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1047, 100 S.Ct. 737, 62 L.Ed.2d 733 (1980); Lopez v. Motley, 552 F.2d 682, 683 (10th Cir.1977) (same); Gonzales v. Stover, 575 F.2d 827, 828 (10th Cir.1978) (same); United States v. Swigart, 490 F.2d 914, 915 (10th Cir.1973) (federal criminal appeal); United States v. O’Neal, 453 F.2d 344, 345 (10th Cir.1972) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "187 F.3d 1219, 1220",
"parenthetical": "dismissing criminal appeal where defendant failed to report for supervised release following prison term and was declared a fugitive from justice",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. Hanzlicek, 187 F.3d 1219, 1220 (10th Cir.1999) (dismissing criminal appeal where defendant failed to report for supervised release following prison term and was declared a fugitive from justice); see also Brinlee v. Crisp, 608 F.2d 839, 856-57 (10th Cir.1979) (upholding denial of habeas corpus petition when state court dismissed criminal defendant’s appeal because he was a fugitive), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1047, 100 S.Ct. 737, 62 L.Ed.2d 733 (1980); Lopez v. Motley, 552 F.2d 682, 683 (10th Cir.1977) (same); Gonzales v. Stover, 575 F.2d 827, 828 (10th Cir.1978) (same); United States v. Swigart, 490 F.2d 914, 915 (10th Cir.1973) (federal criminal appeal); United States v. O’Neal, 453 F.2d 344, 345 (10th Cir.1972) (same)."
} | 3,657,034 | b |
This court has applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine numerous times in the criminal appeal context. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "187 F.3d 1219, 1220",
"parenthetical": "dismissing criminal appeal where defendant failed to report for supervised release following prison term and was declared a fugitive from justice",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. Hanzlicek, 187 F.3d 1219, 1220 (10th Cir.1999) (dismissing criminal appeal where defendant failed to report for supervised release following prison term and was declared a fugitive from justice); see also Brinlee v. Crisp, 608 F.2d 839, 856-57 (10th Cir.1979) (upholding denial of habeas corpus petition when state court dismissed criminal defendant’s appeal because he was a fugitive), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1047, 100 S.Ct. 737, 62 L.Ed.2d 733 (1980); Lopez v. Motley, 552 F.2d 682, 683 (10th Cir.1977) (same); Gonzales v. Stover, 575 F.2d 827, 828 (10th Cir.1978) (same); United States v. Swigart, 490 F.2d 914, 915 (10th Cir.1973) (federal criminal appeal); United States v. O’Neal, 453 F.2d 344, 345 (10th Cir.1972) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding denial of habeas corpus petition when state court dismissed criminal defendant's appeal because he was a fugitive",
"sentence": "See, e.g., United States v. Hanzlicek, 187 F.3d 1219, 1220 (10th Cir.1999) (dismissing criminal appeal where defendant failed to report for supervised release following prison term and was declared a fugitive from justice); see also Brinlee v. Crisp, 608 F.2d 839, 856-57 (10th Cir.1979) (upholding denial of habeas corpus petition when state court dismissed criminal defendant’s appeal because he was a fugitive), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1047, 100 S.Ct. 737, 62 L.Ed.2d 733 (1980); Lopez v. Motley, 552 F.2d 682, 683 (10th Cir.1977) (same); Gonzales v. Stover, 575 F.2d 827, 828 (10th Cir.1978) (same); United States v. Swigart, 490 F.2d 914, 915 (10th Cir.1973) (federal criminal appeal); United States v. O’Neal, 453 F.2d 344, 345 (10th Cir.1972) (same)."
} | 3,657,034 | a |
The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs' Title VII retaliation claims because plaintiffs failed to initiate contact with an Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") Counselor or any agency official logically connected with the EEO process within 45 days of becoming aware of the facts underlying their retaliation claims. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "572 F.3d 1039, 1044-46",
"parenthetical": "explaining that for a retaliation claim, plaintiff can comply with SS 1614.105(a)(1",
"sentence": "See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) (“An aggrieved person must initiate contact with á Counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory[.]”); Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (Title VII claim accrues upon awareness of the actual injury and not when a plaintiff suspects a legal wrong); see also Kraus v. Presidio Trust Facilities Div./Residential Mgmt. Branch, 572 F.3d 1039, 1044-46 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that for a retaliation claim, plaintiff can comply with § 1614.105(a)(1) by initiating contact with “any agency official logically connected with the EEO process, even if that official is not an EEO Counselor, and by exhibiting an intent to begin the EEO process”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "535 F.3d 1044, 1051",
"parenthetical": "Title VII claim accrues upon awareness of the actual injury and not when a plaintiff suspects a legal wrong",
"sentence": "See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) (“An aggrieved person must initiate contact with á Counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory[.]”); Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (Title VII claim accrues upon awareness of the actual injury and not when a plaintiff suspects a legal wrong); see also Kraus v. Presidio Trust Facilities Div./Residential Mgmt. Branch, 572 F.3d 1039, 1044-46 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that for a retaliation claim, plaintiff can comply with § 1614.105(a)(1) by initiating contact with “any agency official logically connected with the EEO process, even if that official is not an EEO Counselor, and by exhibiting an intent to begin the EEO process”)."
} | 12,412,025 | b |
The court must first determine whether there is "objective evidence of coercion, duress, deception, promises, threats, intrusive conduct or other undue influence by the police, which critically impaired the defendant's judgment." | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "633 P.2d 1071, 1077",
"parenthetical": "when upholding police action in that case, pointing out that officer did not claim the right to conduct the sobriety test or attempt to deceive defendant about his rights",
"sentence": "People v. Helm, 633 P.2d 1071, 1077 (Colo.1981)(when upholding police action in that case, pointing out that officer did not claim the right to conduct the sobriety test or attempt to deceive defendant about his rights)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "992 P.2d 1182, 1182",
"parenthetical": "stating that a court \"must decide whether the police conduct could reasonably have appeared to be coercive to a person in the defendant's circumstances\"",
"sentence": "See also Reddersen, 992 P.2d at 1182 (stating that a court “must decide whether the police conduct could reasonably have appeared to be coercive to a person in the defendant’s circumstances”)."
} | 8,332,975 | a |
As discussed above, this case is simply not about CITA's non-reviewable substantive decisions concerning the imposition of safeguards. Plaintiff challenges the existence of CITA's regulations and CITA's actions pursuant thereto. The Federal Circuit has held that such regulatory challenges do not require the exhaustion of administrative remedies. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "19 CIT 1185, 1185",
"parenthetical": "finding question of CITA's ultra vires actions ripe for judicial review absent final agency action",
"sentence": "See AAEI-TAG II, 751 F.2d at 1245-46 (not requiring exhaustion under protest procedures where importers challenged existence of CITA-directed regulations imposing import restrictions); see also Fieldston Clothes, 19 CIT at 1185, 903 F.Supp. at 76-77 (finding question of CITA’s ultra vires actions ripe for judicial review absent final agency action)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "751 F.2d 1245, 1245-46",
"parenthetical": "not requiring exhaustion under protest procedures where importers challenged existence of CITA-directed regulations imposing import restrictions",
"sentence": "See AAEI-TAG II, 751 F.2d at 1245-46 (not requiring exhaustion under protest procedures where importers challenged existence of CITA-directed regulations imposing import restrictions); see also Fieldston Clothes, 19 CIT at 1185, 903 F.Supp. at 76-77 (finding question of CITA’s ultra vires actions ripe for judicial review absent final agency action)."
} | 8,981,657 | b |
As discussed above, this case is simply not about CITA's non-reviewable substantive decisions concerning the imposition of safeguards. Plaintiff challenges the existence of CITA's regulations and CITA's actions pursuant thereto. The Federal Circuit has held that such regulatory challenges do not require the exhaustion of administrative remedies. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "903 F.Supp. 76, 76-77",
"parenthetical": "finding question of CITA's ultra vires actions ripe for judicial review absent final agency action",
"sentence": "See AAEI-TAG II, 751 F.2d at 1245-46 (not requiring exhaustion under protest procedures where importers challenged existence of CITA-directed regulations imposing import restrictions); see also Fieldston Clothes, 19 CIT at 1185, 903 F.Supp. at 76-77 (finding question of CITA’s ultra vires actions ripe for judicial review absent final agency action)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "751 F.2d 1245, 1245-46",
"parenthetical": "not requiring exhaustion under protest procedures where importers challenged existence of CITA-directed regulations imposing import restrictions",
"sentence": "See AAEI-TAG II, 751 F.2d at 1245-46 (not requiring exhaustion under protest procedures where importers challenged existence of CITA-directed regulations imposing import restrictions); see also Fieldston Clothes, 19 CIT at 1185, 903 F.Supp. at 76-77 (finding question of CITA’s ultra vires actions ripe for judicial review absent final agency action)."
} | 8,981,657 | b |
This court has positively cited Steagaid when addressing situations in which the prosecution failed to raise standing before the trial court. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "declining to address whether defendant had legitimate expectation of privacy when prosecution did not raise issue on interlocutory appeal",
"sentence": "See People v. McKinstrey, 852 P.2d 467, 470 n. 4 (Colo.1998) (declining to address whether defendant had legitimate expectation of privacy when prosecution did not raise issue on interlocutory appeal); People v. Burola, 848 P.2d 958, 960 n. 2 (Colo.1993) (rejecting invitation to address standing when prosecution lost the right to raise the issue by failing to address it in front of trial court or seeking certiorari on the question); People v. Hearty, 644 P.2d at 311-12. See also United States v. Dewitt, 946 F.2d 1497, 1499-1500 (10th Cir.1991) (ruling prosecution waived its opportunity to raise standing on appeal when it did not raise issue below at suppression hearing and offered no exeuse for the omission)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "652 F.2d 1374, 1382",
"parenthetical": "concluding \"confusing\" cireum-stances made it unfair to impose waiver of standing after prosecution failed to address issue at trial and distinguishing Steagaid because prosecution had not made contrary assertions about factual predicates of standing",
"sentence": "But see United States v. Hansen, 652 F.2d 1374, 1382 (10th Cir.1981) (concluding \"confusing\" cireum-stances made it unfair to impose waiver of standing after prosecution failed to address issue at trial and distinguishing Steagaid because prosecution had not made contrary assertions about factual predicates of standing)."
} | 8,305,927 | a |
This court has positively cited Steagaid when addressing situations in which the prosecution failed to raise standing before the trial court. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "652 F.2d 1374, 1382",
"parenthetical": "concluding \"confusing\" cireum-stances made it unfair to impose waiver of standing after prosecution failed to address issue at trial and distinguishing Steagaid because prosecution had not made contrary assertions about factual predicates of standing",
"sentence": "But see United States v. Hansen, 652 F.2d 1374, 1382 (10th Cir.1981) (concluding \"confusing\" cireum-stances made it unfair to impose waiver of standing after prosecution failed to address issue at trial and distinguishing Steagaid because prosecution had not made contrary assertions about factual predicates of standing)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "rejecting invitation to address standing when prosecution lost the right to raise the issue by failing to address it in front of trial court or seeking certiorari on the question",
"sentence": "See People v. McKinstrey, 852 P.2d 467, 470 n. 4 (Colo.1998) (declining to address whether defendant had legitimate expectation of privacy when prosecution did not raise issue on interlocutory appeal); People v. Burola, 848 P.2d 958, 960 n. 2 (Colo.1993) (rejecting invitation to address standing when prosecution lost the right to raise the issue by failing to address it in front of trial court or seeking certiorari on the question); People v. Hearty, 644 P.2d at 311-12. See also United States v. Dewitt, 946 F.2d 1497, 1499-1500 (10th Cir.1991) (ruling prosecution waived its opportunity to raise standing on appeal when it did not raise issue below at suppression hearing and offered no exeuse for the omission)."
} | 8,305,927 | b |
This court has positively cited Steagaid when addressing situations in which the prosecution failed to raise standing before the trial court. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "644 P.2d 311, 311-12",
"parenthetical": "ruling prosecution waived its opportunity to raise standing on appeal when it did not raise issue below at suppression hearing and offered no exeuse for the omission",
"sentence": "See People v. McKinstrey, 852 P.2d 467, 470 n. 4 (Colo.1998) (declining to address whether defendant had legitimate expectation of privacy when prosecution did not raise issue on interlocutory appeal); People v. Burola, 848 P.2d 958, 960 n. 2 (Colo.1993) (rejecting invitation to address standing when prosecution lost the right to raise the issue by failing to address it in front of trial court or seeking certiorari on the question); People v. Hearty, 644 P.2d at 311-12. See also United States v. Dewitt, 946 F.2d 1497, 1499-1500 (10th Cir.1991) (ruling prosecution waived its opportunity to raise standing on appeal when it did not raise issue below at suppression hearing and offered no exeuse for the omission)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "652 F.2d 1374, 1382",
"parenthetical": "concluding \"confusing\" cireum-stances made it unfair to impose waiver of standing after prosecution failed to address issue at trial and distinguishing Steagaid because prosecution had not made contrary assertions about factual predicates of standing",
"sentence": "But see United States v. Hansen, 652 F.2d 1374, 1382 (10th Cir.1981) (concluding \"confusing\" cireum-stances made it unfair to impose waiver of standing after prosecution failed to address issue at trial and distinguishing Steagaid because prosecution had not made contrary assertions about factual predicates of standing)."
} | 8,305,927 | a |
This court has positively cited Steagaid when addressing situations in which the prosecution failed to raise standing before the trial court. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "946 F.2d 1497, 1499-1500",
"parenthetical": "ruling prosecution waived its opportunity to raise standing on appeal when it did not raise issue below at suppression hearing and offered no exeuse for the omission",
"sentence": "See People v. McKinstrey, 852 P.2d 467, 470 n. 4 (Colo.1998) (declining to address whether defendant had legitimate expectation of privacy when prosecution did not raise issue on interlocutory appeal); People v. Burola, 848 P.2d 958, 960 n. 2 (Colo.1993) (rejecting invitation to address standing when prosecution lost the right to raise the issue by failing to address it in front of trial court or seeking certiorari on the question); People v. Hearty, 644 P.2d at 311-12. See also United States v. Dewitt, 946 F.2d 1497, 1499-1500 (10th Cir.1991) (ruling prosecution waived its opportunity to raise standing on appeal when it did not raise issue below at suppression hearing and offered no exeuse for the omission)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "652 F.2d 1374, 1382",
"parenthetical": "concluding \"confusing\" cireum-stances made it unfair to impose waiver of standing after prosecution failed to address issue at trial and distinguishing Steagaid because prosecution had not made contrary assertions about factual predicates of standing",
"sentence": "But see United States v. Hansen, 652 F.2d 1374, 1382 (10th Cir.1981) (concluding \"confusing\" cireum-stances made it unfair to impose waiver of standing after prosecution failed to address issue at trial and distinguishing Steagaid because prosecution had not made contrary assertions about factual predicates of standing)."
} | 8,305,927 | a |
However, Mr. Melton asserts that adoption proceedings were scheduled for May 12,13, 14,15, and 16, 2014 in D.C. Superior Court and this Court cannot stay proceedings that already have occurred. Moreover, this Court must abstain from interfering in ongoing D.C. court proceedings under the Younger abstention doctrine. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "401 U.S. 45, 45",
"parenthetical": "\"[T]he normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions.\"",
"sentence": "See Younger, 401 U.S. at 45, 91 S.Ct. 746 (“[T]he normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions.”); see also District Properties Assocs. v. District of Columbia, 743 F.2d 21, 27 (D.C.Cir.1984) (“[B]ased on principles of equity ... the doctrine of Younger ... and its progeny restrains federal courts from interfering in ongoing state judicial proceedings.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "743 F.2d 21, 27",
"parenthetical": "\"[B]ased on principles of equity ... the doctrine of Younger ... and its progeny restrains federal courts from interfering in ongoing state judicial proceedings.\"",
"sentence": "See Younger, 401 U.S. at 45, 91 S.Ct. 746 (“[T]he normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions.”); see also District Properties Assocs. v. District of Columbia, 743 F.2d 21, 27 (D.C.Cir.1984) (“[B]ased on principles of equity ... the doctrine of Younger ... and its progeny restrains federal courts from interfering in ongoing state judicial proceedings.”)."
} | 6,885,706 | a |
However, Mr. Melton asserts that adoption proceedings were scheduled for May 12,13, 14,15, and 16, 2014 in D.C. Superior Court and this Court cannot stay proceedings that already have occurred. Moreover, this Court must abstain from interfering in ongoing D.C. court proceedings under the Younger abstention doctrine. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[T]he normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions.\"",
"sentence": "See Younger, 401 U.S. at 45, 91 S.Ct. 746 (“[T]he normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions.”); see also District Properties Assocs. v. District of Columbia, 743 F.2d 21, 27 (D.C.Cir.1984) (“[B]ased on principles of equity ... the doctrine of Younger ... and its progeny restrains federal courts from interfering in ongoing state judicial proceedings.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "743 F.2d 21, 27",
"parenthetical": "\"[B]ased on principles of equity ... the doctrine of Younger ... and its progeny restrains federal courts from interfering in ongoing state judicial proceedings.\"",
"sentence": "See Younger, 401 U.S. at 45, 91 S.Ct. 746 (“[T]he normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions.”); see also District Properties Assocs. v. District of Columbia, 743 F.2d 21, 27 (D.C.Cir.1984) (“[B]ased on principles of equity ... the doctrine of Younger ... and its progeny restrains federal courts from interfering in ongoing state judicial proceedings.”)."
} | 6,885,706 | a |
Additionally, Dr. Kraut has conducted his own research, and maintained an active familiarity in the research of other leading experts, in the subject of jaw necrosis. For these reasons, the Court finds Dr. Kraut to be qualified to offer opinions concerning causation (whether general or specific) under Daubert. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "857 F.Supp.2d 277, 277",
"parenthetical": "finding Dr. Kraut to be qualified for purposes of offering an expert opinion as to causation for similar reasons",
"sentence": "See Davids, 857 F.Supp.2d at 277 (finding Dr. Kraut to be qualified for purposes of offering an expert opinion as to causation for similar reasons); In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 688 F.Supp.2d 259, 268 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (finding a doctor to be qualified under Rule 702 to offer expert testimony because the record showed that “[h]e has practiced dentistry for over 30 years; he specializes in oralfa-cial pain and maxillofacial radiology; he keeps up to date with the developments in research regarding BRONJ and has given presentations on the issue; he also has practical experience in that he has treated many patients that he believes developed ONJ from a bisphosphonate”); cf. Harvey, 895 F.Supp.2d at 1211 (finding that a doctor was not qualified to testify concerning possible ONJ causation where doctor’s testimony showed that he had never conducted medical or scientific research in the field of ONJ, had never researched bis-phosphonates, and had not published articles or otherwise hold relevant experience concerning bisphosphonates or ONJ)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "895 F.Supp.2d 1211, 1211",
"parenthetical": "finding that a doctor was not qualified to testify concerning possible ONJ causation where doctor's testimony showed that he had never conducted medical or scientific research in the field of ONJ, had never researched bis-phosphonates, and had not published articles or otherwise hold relevant experience concerning bisphosphonates or ONJ",
"sentence": "See Davids, 857 F.Supp.2d at 277 (finding Dr. Kraut to be qualified for purposes of offering an expert opinion as to causation for similar reasons); In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 688 F.Supp.2d 259, 268 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (finding a doctor to be qualified under Rule 702 to offer expert testimony because the record showed that “[h]e has practiced dentistry for over 30 years; he specializes in oralfa-cial pain and maxillofacial radiology; he keeps up to date with the developments in research regarding BRONJ and has given presentations on the issue; he also has practical experience in that he has treated many patients that he believes developed ONJ from a bisphosphonate”); cf. Harvey, 895 F.Supp.2d at 1211 (finding that a doctor was not qualified to testify concerning possible ONJ causation where doctor’s testimony showed that he had never conducted medical or scientific research in the field of ONJ, had never researched bis-phosphonates, and had not published articles or otherwise hold relevant experience concerning bisphosphonates or ONJ)."
} | 4,259,996 | a |
Tax statutes in addition to the one at issue here recognize that taxpayers may recover money lost because taxes were erroneously imposed. This statutorily recognized interest in property is protected by the due process clause. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "rejecting on other grounds a claim that denial of right to appeal property tax valuation was due process violation",
"sentence": "See Smotkin v. Peterson, 73 Ariz. 1, 5, 236 P.2d 743, 745 (1951) (taxpayer’s remedy of action for refund is adequate and does not violate due process); cf. Maricopa County v. Superior Court (First Interstate Bank), 170 Ariz. 248, 823 P.2d 696 (App.1991) (rejecting on other grounds a claim that denial of right to appeal property tax valuation was due process violation)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "73 Ariz. 1, 5",
"parenthetical": "taxpayer's remedy of action for refund is adequate and does not violate due process",
"sentence": "See Smotkin v. Peterson, 73 Ariz. 1, 5, 236 P.2d 743, 745 (1951) (taxpayer’s remedy of action for refund is adequate and does not violate due process); cf. Maricopa County v. Superior Court (First Interstate Bank), 170 Ariz. 248, 823 P.2d 696 (App.1991) (rejecting on other grounds a claim that denial of right to appeal property tax valuation was due process violation)."
} | 1,460,867 | b |
Tax statutes in addition to the one at issue here recognize that taxpayers may recover money lost because taxes were erroneously imposed. This statutorily recognized interest in property is protected by the due process clause. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "73 Ariz. 1, 5",
"parenthetical": "taxpayer's remedy of action for refund is adequate and does not violate due process",
"sentence": "See Smotkin v. Peterson, 73 Ariz. 1, 5, 236 P.2d 743, 745 (1951) (taxpayer’s remedy of action for refund is adequate and does not violate due process); cf. Maricopa County v. Superior Court (First Interstate Bank), 170 Ariz. 248, 823 P.2d 696 (App.1991) (rejecting on other grounds a claim that denial of right to appeal property tax valuation was due process violation)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "rejecting on other grounds a claim that denial of right to appeal property tax valuation was due process violation",
"sentence": "See Smotkin v. Peterson, 73 Ariz. 1, 5, 236 P.2d 743, 745 (1951) (taxpayer’s remedy of action for refund is adequate and does not violate due process); cf. Maricopa County v. Superior Court (First Interstate Bank), 170 Ariz. 248, 823 P.2d 696 (App.1991) (rejecting on other grounds a claim that denial of right to appeal property tax valuation was due process violation)."
} | 1,460,867 | a |
Tax statutes in addition to the one at issue here recognize that taxpayers may recover money lost because taxes were erroneously imposed. This statutorily recognized interest in property is protected by the due process clause. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "236 P.2d 743, 745",
"parenthetical": "taxpayer's remedy of action for refund is adequate and does not violate due process",
"sentence": "See Smotkin v. Peterson, 73 Ariz. 1, 5, 236 P.2d 743, 745 (1951) (taxpayer’s remedy of action for refund is adequate and does not violate due process); cf. Maricopa County v. Superior Court (First Interstate Bank), 170 Ariz. 248, 823 P.2d 696 (App.1991) (rejecting on other grounds a claim that denial of right to appeal property tax valuation was due process violation)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "rejecting on other grounds a claim that denial of right to appeal property tax valuation was due process violation",
"sentence": "See Smotkin v. Peterson, 73 Ariz. 1, 5, 236 P.2d 743, 745 (1951) (taxpayer’s remedy of action for refund is adequate and does not violate due process); cf. Maricopa County v. Superior Court (First Interstate Bank), 170 Ariz. 248, 823 P.2d 696 (App.1991) (rejecting on other grounds a claim that denial of right to appeal property tax valuation was due process violation)."
} | 1,460,867 | a |
Tax statutes in addition to the one at issue here recognize that taxpayers may recover money lost because taxes were erroneously imposed. This statutorily recognized interest in property is protected by the due process clause. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "236 P.2d 743, 745",
"parenthetical": "taxpayer's remedy of action for refund is adequate and does not violate due process",
"sentence": "See Smotkin v. Peterson, 73 Ariz. 1, 5, 236 P.2d 743, 745 (1951) (taxpayer’s remedy of action for refund is adequate and does not violate due process); cf. Maricopa County v. Superior Court (First Interstate Bank), 170 Ariz. 248, 823 P.2d 696 (App.1991) (rejecting on other grounds a claim that denial of right to appeal property tax valuation was due process violation)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "rejecting on other grounds a claim that denial of right to appeal property tax valuation was due process violation",
"sentence": "See Smotkin v. Peterson, 73 Ariz. 1, 5, 236 P.2d 743, 745 (1951) (taxpayer’s remedy of action for refund is adequate and does not violate due process); cf. Maricopa County v. Superior Court (First Interstate Bank), 170 Ariz. 248, 823 P.2d 696 (App.1991) (rejecting on other grounds a claim that denial of right to appeal property tax valuation was due process violation)."
} | 1,460,867 | a |
This approach also puts a child of separated parents in the same situation as a child of parents who are not separated because it allows the child to maintain the same standard of living as if the parents had not separated. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "87 N.Y.2d 612, 612",
"parenthetical": "\"[H]ad the marriage not been dissolved, petitioner's children would have enjoyed a standard of living based on both parents' income plus the social security benefits they received as petitioner's dependents.\"",
"sentence": "See Graby, 87 N.Y.2d at 612, 641 N.Y.S.2d at 581, 664 N.E.2d at 492 (“[H]ad the marriage not been dissolved, petitioner’s children would have enjoyed a standard of living based on both parents’ income plus the social security benefits they received as petitioner’s dependents.”); cf. Stultz, 659 N.E.2d at 129 (noting in a social security retirement benefits case that if the marriage had not been dissolved, the children would have had the benefit of their parent’s social security retirement benefits and their own social security retirement dependency benefit)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "659 N.E.2d 129, 129",
"parenthetical": "noting in a social security retirement benefits case that if the marriage had not been dissolved, the children would have had the benefit of their parent's social security retirement benefits and their own social security retirement dependency benefit",
"sentence": "See Graby, 87 N.Y.2d at 612, 641 N.Y.S.2d at 581, 664 N.E.2d at 492 (“[H]ad the marriage not been dissolved, petitioner’s children would have enjoyed a standard of living based on both parents’ income plus the social security benefits they received as petitioner’s dependents.”); cf. Stultz, 659 N.E.2d at 129 (noting in a social security retirement benefits case that if the marriage had not been dissolved, the children would have had the benefit of their parent’s social security retirement benefits and their own social security retirement dependency benefit)."
} | 1,537,478 | a |
This approach also puts a child of separated parents in the same situation as a child of parents who are not separated because it allows the child to maintain the same standard of living as if the parents had not separated. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "659 N.E.2d 129, 129",
"parenthetical": "noting in a social security retirement benefits case that if the marriage had not been dissolved, the children would have had the benefit of their parent's social security retirement benefits and their own social security retirement dependency benefit",
"sentence": "See Graby, 87 N.Y.2d at 612, 641 N.Y.S.2d at 581, 664 N.E.2d at 492 (“[H]ad the marriage not been dissolved, petitioner’s children would have enjoyed a standard of living based on both parents’ income plus the social security benefits they received as petitioner’s dependents.”); cf. Stultz, 659 N.E.2d at 129 (noting in a social security retirement benefits case that if the marriage had not been dissolved, the children would have had the benefit of their parent’s social security retirement benefits and their own social security retirement dependency benefit)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "641 N.Y.S.2d 581, 581",
"parenthetical": "\"[H]ad the marriage not been dissolved, petitioner's children would have enjoyed a standard of living based on both parents' income plus the social security benefits they received as petitioner's dependents.\"",
"sentence": "See Graby, 87 N.Y.2d at 612, 641 N.Y.S.2d at 581, 664 N.E.2d at 492 (“[H]ad the marriage not been dissolved, petitioner’s children would have enjoyed a standard of living based on both parents’ income plus the social security benefits they received as petitioner’s dependents.”); cf. Stultz, 659 N.E.2d at 129 (noting in a social security retirement benefits case that if the marriage had not been dissolved, the children would have had the benefit of their parent’s social security retirement benefits and their own social security retirement dependency benefit)."
} | 1,537,478 | b |
This approach also puts a child of separated parents in the same situation as a child of parents who are not separated because it allows the child to maintain the same standard of living as if the parents had not separated. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "659 N.E.2d 129, 129",
"parenthetical": "noting in a social security retirement benefits case that if the marriage had not been dissolved, the children would have had the benefit of their parent's social security retirement benefits and their own social security retirement dependency benefit",
"sentence": "See Graby, 87 N.Y.2d at 612, 641 N.Y.S.2d at 581, 664 N.E.2d at 492 (“[H]ad the marriage not been dissolved, petitioner’s children would have enjoyed a standard of living based on both parents’ income plus the social security benefits they received as petitioner’s dependents.”); cf. Stultz, 659 N.E.2d at 129 (noting in a social security retirement benefits case that if the marriage had not been dissolved, the children would have had the benefit of their parent’s social security retirement benefits and their own social security retirement dependency benefit)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "664 N.E.2d 492, 492",
"parenthetical": "\"[H]ad the marriage not been dissolved, petitioner's children would have enjoyed a standard of living based on both parents' income plus the social security benefits they received as petitioner's dependents.\"",
"sentence": "See Graby, 87 N.Y.2d at 612, 641 N.Y.S.2d at 581, 664 N.E.2d at 492 (“[H]ad the marriage not been dissolved, petitioner’s children would have enjoyed a standard of living based on both parents’ income plus the social security benefits they received as petitioner’s dependents.”); cf. Stultz, 659 N.E.2d at 129 (noting in a social security retirement benefits case that if the marriage had not been dissolved, the children would have had the benefit of their parent’s social security retirement benefits and their own social security retirement dependency benefit)."
} | 1,537,478 | b |
While the litigation privilege is an affirmative defense, Am. Nat'l Title & Escrow of Fla., Inc., 810 So.2d at 998, it can be adjudicated on a motion to dismiss if the applicability of the privilege can be clearly discerned from the face of the complaint. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "dismissing plaintiffs complaint on the basis of the litigation privilege",
"sentence": "Kidwell v. Gen. Motors Corp., 975 So.2d 503, 505 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“Although immunity is an affirmative defense, it can be considered on a motion to dismiss if the complaint demonstrates the existence of the defense.”); see also Donner v. Appalachian Ins. Co., 580 So.2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (dismissing plaintiffs complaint on the basis of the litigation privilege); Vaswani v. Ganobselc, 402 So.2d 1350, 1351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (“If the face of the complaint contains allegations which demonstrate the existence of an affirmative defense, then such defense can be considered on a motion to dismiss.”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"Although immunity is an affirmative defense, it can be considered on a motion to dismiss if the complaint demonstrates the existence of the defense.\"",
"sentence": "Kidwell v. Gen. Motors Corp., 975 So.2d 503, 505 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“Although immunity is an affirmative defense, it can be considered on a motion to dismiss if the complaint demonstrates the existence of the defense.”); see also Donner v. Appalachian Ins. Co., 580 So.2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (dismissing plaintiffs complaint on the basis of the litigation privilege); Vaswani v. Ganobselc, 402 So.2d 1350, 1351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (“If the face of the complaint contains allegations which demonstrate the existence of an affirmative defense, then such defense can be considered on a motion to dismiss.”)."
} | 7,009,952 | b |
While the litigation privilege is an affirmative defense, Am. Nat'l Title & Escrow of Fla., Inc., 810 So.2d at 998, it can be adjudicated on a motion to dismiss if the applicability of the privilege can be clearly discerned from the face of the complaint. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"Although immunity is an affirmative defense, it can be considered on a motion to dismiss if the complaint demonstrates the existence of the defense.\"",
"sentence": "Kidwell v. Gen. Motors Corp., 975 So.2d 503, 505 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“Although immunity is an affirmative defense, it can be considered on a motion to dismiss if the complaint demonstrates the existence of the defense.”); see also Donner v. Appalachian Ins. Co., 580 So.2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (dismissing plaintiffs complaint on the basis of the litigation privilege); Vaswani v. Ganobselc, 402 So.2d 1350, 1351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (“If the face of the complaint contains allegations which demonstrate the existence of an affirmative defense, then such defense can be considered on a motion to dismiss.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "402 So.2d 1350, 1351",
"parenthetical": "\"If the face of the complaint contains allegations which demonstrate the existence of an affirmative defense, then such defense can be considered on a motion to dismiss.\"",
"sentence": "Kidwell v. Gen. Motors Corp., 975 So.2d 503, 505 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“Although immunity is an affirmative defense, it can be considered on a motion to dismiss if the complaint demonstrates the existence of the defense.”); see also Donner v. Appalachian Ins. Co., 580 So.2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (dismissing plaintiffs complaint on the basis of the litigation privilege); Vaswani v. Ganobselc, 402 So.2d 1350, 1351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (“If the face of the complaint contains allegations which demonstrate the existence of an affirmative defense, then such defense can be considered on a motion to dismiss.”)."
} | 7,009,952 | a |
The district court did not discuss whether the service of Kodak equipment could be a relevant market and whether Kodak might possess monopoly power or a dangerous possibility of monopoly power in that market. This court has strongly suggested that service of one company's micrographic equipment can be a relevant market under Section 2. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "implying without analysis that the relevant market for servicing dictating equipment is the interbrand service market",
"sentence": "See Dim idowich, 803 F.2d at 1480-81 n. 3 (“[A]n owner of broken [Bell & Howell] micro-graphic equipment is indifferent to people who can service Kodak or 3M machines. If the owner’s only option is to request service from Bell & Howell or Comgraphix (depending on his location), that is obviously the market the owner faces.”); Cf. Bushie, 460 F.2d at 118 n. 1, 120-21 (implying without analysis that the relevant market for servicing dictating equipment is the interbrand service market)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[A]n owner of broken [Bell & Howell] micro-graphic equipment is indifferent to people who can service Kodak or 3M machines. If the owner's only option is to request service from Bell & Howell or Comgraphix (depending on his location",
"sentence": "See Dim idowich, 803 F.2d at 1480-81 n. 3 (“[A]n owner of broken [Bell & Howell] micro-graphic equipment is indifferent to people who can service Kodak or 3M machines. If the owner’s only option is to request service from Bell & Howell or Comgraphix (depending on his location), that is obviously the market the owner faces.”); Cf. Bushie, 460 F.2d at 118 n. 1, 120-21 (implying without analysis that the relevant market for servicing dictating equipment is the interbrand service market)."
} | 10,537,366 | b |
At least one Texas court of appeals has applied Randolph in the context of a vehicle search. The Beaumont Court of Appeals held that the driver's consent was valid based on her care, custody, and control of the vehicle. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "526 F.3d 1339, 1339",
"parenthetical": "\"[T]he extension of the prohibition on warrantless searches applies only to defendants who are present and actually express a refusal to consent.\"",
"sentence": "See Houston, 286 S.W.3d at 609 (“Voluntary consent given by a third party is not valid as to the defendant if the defendant is also present and expressly refuses to consent.”); see also Harris, 526 F.3d at 1339 (“[T]he extension of the prohibition on warrantless searches applies only to defendants who are present and actually express a refusal to consent.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "286 S.W.3d 609, 609",
"parenthetical": "\"Voluntary consent given by a third party is not valid as to the defendant if the defendant is also present and expressly refuses to consent.\"",
"sentence": "See Houston, 286 S.W.3d at 609 (“Voluntary consent given by a third party is not valid as to the defendant if the defendant is also present and expressly refuses to consent.”); see also Harris, 526 F.3d at 1339 (“[T]he extension of the prohibition on warrantless searches applies only to defendants who are present and actually express a refusal to consent.”)."
} | 7,116,590 | b |
Id Even when there is direct evidence of premeditation, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner calmly deliberated or reflected on the decision to kill prior to the actual act of killing to support this aggravating factor. Our cases make clear that this aggravating factor does not apply where the evidence reasonably is susceptible to some other conclusion than that the murder was accomplished in a calculated manner or where there simply is no evidence as to the defendant's state of mind prior to the killing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "456 So.2d 444, 445-47",
"parenthetical": "no evidence to set murder apart from usual holdup murder",
"sentence": "See Thompson v. State, 456 So.2d 444, 445-47 (Fla.1984) (no evidence to set murder apart from usual holdup murder)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "442 So.2d 200, 202",
"parenthetical": "murder that occurred during burglary and robbery is susceptible to other conclusions than finding it was committed in cold, calculated, and premeditated manner",
"sentence": "Peavy v. State, 442 So.2d 200, 202 (Fla.1983) (murder that occurred during burglary and robbery is susceptible to other conclusions than finding it was committed in cold, calculated, and premeditated manner)."
} | 7,575,101 | b |
Finally, ReBrook appeals the district court's decision to increase his sentence for wire fraud because he was an "official holding a high-level decision-making or sensitive position," pursuant to U.S.S.G. SS 201.7(b)(1)(B). Because this question turns primarily on fact, we review the district court's application of SS 201.7(b)(1)(B) under the clearly erroneous standard. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "874 F.2d 213, 217-18",
"parenthetical": "where issue turns primarily on factual determinations, the appellate court should apply \"clearly erroneous\" standard",
"sentence": "United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217-18 (4th Cir.1989) (where issue turns primarily on factual determinations, the appellate court should apply “clearly erroneous” standard); see also United States v. Matzkin, 14 F.3d 1014, 1021 (4th Cir.1994) (applying clearly erroneous standard to application of U.S.S.G. § 201.1(b)(2)(B), which provides offense level increase for payment made to influence any official in a high level decisionmaking or sensitive position)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "14 F.3d 1014, 1021",
"parenthetical": "applying clearly erroneous standard to application of U.S.S.G. SS 201.1(b",
"sentence": "United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217-18 (4th Cir.1989) (where issue turns primarily on factual determinations, the appellate court should apply “clearly erroneous” standard); see also United States v. Matzkin, 14 F.3d 1014, 1021 (4th Cir.1994) (applying clearly erroneous standard to application of U.S.S.G. § 201.1(b)(2)(B), which provides offense level increase for payment made to influence any official in a high level decisionmaking or sensitive position)."
} | 7,412,388 | a |
Class Members' damages differ only in their qualification for Specified Physical Condition compensation. It is well-settled, however, that the necessity of calculating damages on an individual basis does not defeat predominance. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "693 F.3d 532, 544",
"parenthetical": "holding that a common question of causation was \"a predominate issue central to each of Plaintiffs claims and subject to generalize proof' notwithstanding need to review each plaintiffs individual account",
"sentence": "See Young v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 693 F.3d 532, 544 (6th Cir.2012) (holding that a common question of causation was “a predominate issue central to each of Plaintiffs claims and subject to generalize proof’ notwithstanding need to review each plaintiffs individual account); see also Bell Atl. Corp., 339 F.3d at 306 (recognizing that “[e]ven wide disparity among class members as to the amount of damages suffered does not necessarily mean that class certification is inappropriate”); Bertulli v. Indep. Ass’n of Continental Pilots, 242 F.3d 290, 298 (5th Cir.2001); Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, 1197 (6th Cir.1988); Eatmon v. Palisades Collection LLC, Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-306-DF-CE, 2011 WL 147680, at *12 (E.D.Tex."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "339 F.3d 306, 306",
"parenthetical": "recognizing that \"[e]ven wide disparity among class members as to the amount of damages suffered does not necessarily mean that class certification is inappropriate\"",
"sentence": "See Young v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 693 F.3d 532, 544 (6th Cir.2012) (holding that a common question of causation was “a predominate issue central to each of Plaintiffs claims and subject to generalize proof’ notwithstanding need to review each plaintiffs individual account); see also Bell Atl. Corp., 339 F.3d at 306 (recognizing that “[e]ven wide disparity among class members as to the amount of damages suffered does not necessarily mean that class certification is inappropriate”); Bertulli v. Indep. Ass’n of Continental Pilots, 242 F.3d 290, 298 (5th Cir.2001); Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, 1197 (6th Cir.1988); Eatmon v. Palisades Collection LLC, Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-306-DF-CE, 2011 WL 147680, at *12 (E.D.Tex."
} | 4,260,859 | a |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.