AMSDEN

v.

MORAN ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• R. A. v. V. City of ST. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1992)
  …i. e., that which involves the most lascivious displays of sexual activity. But it may not prohibit, for example, only that obscenity which includes offensive political messages. See Kucharek v. Hanaway, 902 F. 2d 513, 517 (CA7 1990), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 1041 (1991). And the Federal Government can criminalize only those threats of violence that are directed against the President, see 18 U. S. C. § 871 — since the reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment (protecting individuals f…
• Christopher v. Cutter Labs., 53 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 1995)
  …dence only for plain error. Id. “Plain errors are obvious and substantial errors which seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Hope, 901 F. 2d 1013, 1020 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1041, 111 S.Ct. 713, 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991). In reviewing all of the evidence and Dr. Robinson’s entire testimony, including those statements that clearly were inconsistent with the allegedly invalid testimony, we hold that the district court did not c…
• United States v. Mendez, 117 F.3d 480 (11th Cir. 1997)
  …1592, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982)). “Plain errors are obvious and substantial errors which seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Hope, 901 F. 2d 1013, 1020 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1041, 111 S.Ct. 713, 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991); see also United States v. Brazel, 102 F. 3d 1120, 1141 (11th Cir.1997) (fading to remedy plain error results in a “miscarriage of justice”). In conducting plain error analysis, we examine the “context of the…