MILLER

v.

SALISBURY, CORRECTIONAL SUPERINTENDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Frost v. Caspar Weinberger, 515 F.2d 57 (2d Cir. 1975)
  …at least in a case like this where the sole issue is the type of hearing required. Benign neglect by the Supreme Court of the jurisdictional amount issue in such cases as Richardson v. Wright, 405 U.S. 208, 92 S.Ct. 788, 31 L.Ed.2d 151, reh. denied, 405 U.S. 1033, 92 S.Ct. 1274, 31 L.Ed.2d 490 (1972), and Richardson v. Griffin, supra, 409 U.S. 1069, 93 S.Ct. 689, 34 L.Ed.2d 660, must signify at least some degree of acquiescence in a federal court’s proceeding to judgment in a matter so peculiarly appropriate…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Tobias Q. Poole v. Perini, 659 F.2d 730 (6th Cir. 1981)
  …s of adoptive confessions to be proper and rejected challenges based upon the confrontation clause, although the voluntariness of the ratification may still be questioned. See Miller v. Cardwell, 448 F. 2d 186, 193-196 (6th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1033, 92 S.Ct. 1295, 31 L.Ed.2d 490 (1972) (no objection made to voluntariness of ratification); Shiflett v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 447 F. 2d 50, 58 (4th Cir. 1971) (en banc), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 994, 92 S.Ct. 1267, 31 L.Ed.2d 462 (1972); United St…
• Glinsey v. Parker, 491 F.2d 337 (6th Cir. 1974)
  …or specifically disavow the statements of Hurd and Harris at the time they were made. This court has had occasion to deal with the issue of an adoptive statement in a recent case. In Miller v. Cardwell, 448 F. 2d 186 (6th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1033, 92 S.Ct. 1295, 31 L.Ed.2d 490 (1972), one Swiger made a statement in Miller’s presence which was recorded on an electric device. Following the completion of Swiger’s statement, Miller was asked by the officers whether the statement was true and he…