SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (30 total)

• Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (U.S. 1987)
  …rial fundamentally unfair. 789 F. 2d, at 448-457. We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ determination that the prosecutor’s question about the criminal defendant’s postarrest silence requires reversal of the conviction in this case. 479 U. S. 988 (1986).8 We disagree with the Court of Appeals and now reverse. II The starting point of our analysis is Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U. S. 610 (1976). The petitioners in Doyle were arrested for selling marijuana. They were given Miranda warnings and made n…
• United States v. Jacobs, 855 F.2d 652 (9th Cir. 1988)
  …2d 917, 921 (9th Cir.1987). The first two of these factors are of equal importance, and a finding of either one of them would support a remand to a different judge. United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 785 F. 2d 777, 780 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 988, 107 S.Ct. 580, 93 L.Ed.2d 583 (1986). Here, while we are confident that Judge Price would put out of his mind his previously expressed views upon remand in light of this opinion (therefore the first factor would not apply), we hold that we must or…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. AIR Asia Co., Ltd., 880 F.2d 176 (9th Cir. 1989)
  …B This court has inherent authority to order reassignment to a different district judge, but such action is justified only in rare and extraordinary circumstances. See United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 785 F. 2d 777 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 988, 107 S.Ct. 580, 93 L.Ed.2d 583 (1986). In making this determination, we consider the following factors: (1) whether the original judge would reasonably be expected upon remand to have substantial difficulty in putting out of his or her mind previou…