Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership
507 U.S. 380 (1993) Cited 7,895 times 14 Legal AnalysesHolding that clients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys
Alderman v. United States
394 U.S. 165 (1968) Cited 2,333 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that the victim of a warrantless search may object to the use of its fruits "not because he had any interest in the seized items as 'effects' protected by the Fourth Amendment, but because they were the fruits of an unauthorized search of his house, which is itself expressly protected by the Fourth Amendment"
United States v. Ceccolini
435 U.S. 268 (1978) Cited 548 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding a police officer's illegal search of an envelope at defendant's store and store clerk's testimony as to defendant's activities sufficiently attenuated to dissipate the connection between the two where a substantial period of time had elapsed between the two events and the clerk's testimony was an act of her own free will
Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co.
431 F.3d 353 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 511 timesHolding that the elements of a civil RICO claim include causal injury to a plaintiff's "business or property"
United States v. Shetler
665 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 91 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that Miranda warnings "are insufficient to ‘purge the taint of a temporally proximate prior illegal’ act"
U.S. v. Davis
332 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 109 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that even a person who lives in the same dwelling does not have unlimited authority to consent to a search of the premises
United States v. Polizzi
500 F.2d 856 (9th Cir. 1974) Cited 225 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the defendant's residence and location of defense witnesses are factors to be considered but are not controlling in the Rule 21(b) analysis
United States v. Seale
461 F.2d 345 (7th Cir. 1972) Cited 181 timesHolding that, where the district court was put on notice that the defendant was dissatisfied with all counsel but one who was hospitalized, and the defendant had relieved all other attorneys and decided to represent himself pro se in the absence of the hospitalized counsel, the district court was under an obligation to inquire into the subject, and its failure to do so constituted an abuse of discretion
U.S. v. Ramirez-Sandoval
872 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1989) Cited 106 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that "the core inquiry is whether the police would have discovered the evidence if the misconduct had not occurred"
United States v. Leonardi
623 F.2d 746 (2d Cir. 1980) Cited 96 timesHolding that evidence was properly excluded because "[it] did not necessarily contradict [the witness's] testimony at trial"