ROSE, WARDEN

v.

LUNDY

Citator

Cited By (64 total)

• Merrill Lynch v. Curran, 456 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1982)
  …ght of action under the CEA were incorrectly decided and that a fair application of the criteria identified in Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S. 66, 78 (1975),51 required rejection of plaintiffs’ damages claims. 638 F. 2d, at 323. [*374] We granted certiorari. 450 U. S. 910 (1981). For the purpose of considering the question whether respondents may assert an implied cause of action for damages, it is assumed that each of the petitioners has violated the statute and thereby caused respondents’ alleged injuries. ) — l…
• Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957 (11th Cir. 1984)
  …onal government action abroad are protected by the Bill of Rights if the government seeks to exploit fruits of its unlawful conduct in a criminal proceeding in the United States. United States v. Demanett, 629 F. 2d 862, 866 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 910, 101 S.Ct. 1347, 67 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980); United States v. Toscanino, 500 F. 2d 267, 280 (2d Cir.1974); cf. United States v. Tiede, 86 F.R.D. 227, 242-44 (U.S. Ct. for Berlin 1979) (protections of Bill of Rights apply to friendly aliens in the America…
• United States v. Sutherland, 656 F.2d 1181 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …tus reus element of the offense to be deemed “unanimous” despite differences among the jurors as to which of the intra-group acts the defendant committed. Id. See also United States v. Freeman, 619 F. 2d 1112, 1118-19 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 910, 101 S.Ct. 1348, 67 L.Ed.2d 334 (1981) (jury need not be unamimous as to whether conspiracy was single or multiple). We are convinced that in this case the jury need not specifically have considered and agreed as to which of a large number of potent…