SCOTT ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES; KULKO V. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (HORN, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST); COLLECTION CONSULTANTS, INC., ET AL. V. TEXAS; DREBIN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; NICKELL V. UNITED STATES; MARTIN B. GLAUSER DODGE CO. V. CHRYSLER CORP. ET AL.; FISHER V. OHIO; LAX V. UNITED STATES; LEE V. UNITED STATES; HARRIS V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS; THOMAS V. GEORGIA; BATTEN V. VIRGINIA; CLAYTON V. LOGGINS, CORRECTIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, ET AL.; JUSTICE V. HESSELDEN PLUMBING CO.; WION V. UNITED STATES; SEK V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP.; CORN V. GEORGIA; DOWNING V. FRAGGASSI ET AL.; O'NEAL V. GRIFFIN ET AL.; SELLARS V. BUSCH ET AL.; DESANTIS V. UNITED STATES; PIERCE V. INDIANA ET AL.; DAVIS V. UNITED STATES; SUPPLEE V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• State v. In the Interest of T.P., 588 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
  …for the officers’ safety. The existence of probable cause is measured by an objective standard, not based on an officer’s underlying intent or subjective motivation. Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 98 S.Ct. 1717, 56 L.Ed.2d 168, reh. denied, 438 U.S. 908, 98 S.Ct. 3127, 57 L.Ed.2d 1150 (1978); Padron v. State, 449 So. 2d 811 (Fla.1984). Although some of the officers’ reasons for suspecting that appellee was armed were unwarranted and not based on any law, we find that the furtive gesture which the…
• United States v. Clark Bailey and Carolyn Gomez, 628 F.2d 938 (6th Cir. 1980)
  …her federal agents reasonably satisfied the minimum requirements of Title III is to be upon the agents’ actions, not their motives, or intent, in conducting the surveillance. 436 U.S. 128, 135-38, 98 S.Ct. 1717, 1722-1724, 56 L.Ed.2d 168, reh. den., 438 U.S. 908, 98 S.Ct. 3127, 57 L.Ed.2d 1150 (1978).…
• Brownlow v. Aman, 740 F.2d 1476 (10th Cir. 1984)
  …ner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2579, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977) . Looking at the totality of the facts in the case at bar, as we must, Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 92, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 1696, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978) , reh’g denied, 438 U.S. 908, 98 S.Ct. 3127, 57 L.Ed.2d 1150 (1978), we hold that the district court did have in personam jurisdiction over the appellants. II. The appellants contend that the trial court erred in rejecting two of their proffered jury instructions, Nos. 1 and…