Citation network
Green Vs. Bock Laundry Machine Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 22, 1989
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Green v. BockSearch
-
Laundry Machine Co. - 490 U.S. 504 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Green v. BockSearch
-
Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.S. 504 (1989) Green v. BockSearch
-
The Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the District Court's ruling, following Circuit precedent established in Diggs v. LyonsSearch
-
s ruling. Pet. for Cert. 9a-10a. The Court of Appeals' disposition followed Circuit precedent established in Diggs v. LyonsSearch
-
Campbell v. GreerSearch
-
The word might be interpreted to encompass all witnesses, civil and criminal, parties or not. See Green v. ShearsonSearch
-
a witness, in which event Rule 609(a)(1)'s balance would apply to civil, as well as criminal, cases. E.g., Howard v. GonzalesSearch
-
therefore, a judge was not required to allow such impeachment. Luck v. UnitedSearch
-
H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 93-1597, pp. 9-10 (1974). Accord, Linskey v. HeckerSearch
-
changed settled law has the burden of showing that the legislature intended such a change. Cf. Midlantic National Bank v. NewSearch
-
civil or criminal cases. Departures from this general rule had occurred overtly by judicial interpretation, as in Luck v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
hardly demonstrates that Congress intended silently to overhaul the law of impeachment in the civil context. Cf. NLRB v. PlasterersSearch
-
A general statutory rule usually does not govern unless there is no more specific rule. See D. Ginsberg & Sons, Inc. v. PopkinSearch
-
Gertz v. FitchburgSearch
-
have allowed balancing without questioning Rule 609(a)'s asymmetry when applied to the civil context. E.g., Murr v. StinsonSearch
-
Calhoun v. BaylorSearch
-
Cf. Campbell v. GreerSearch
-
Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. RamboSearch
-
convicted of burglary could be admitted as impeachment, though not in the plaintiff's case in chief. See also Wounick v. HysmithSearch
-
Nesbitt v. AlliedSearch
-
Taylor v. AtchisonSearch
-
Pfotzer v. AquaSearch
-
Systems, Inc., 162 F.2d 779, 785 (CA2 1947). See also Pasternak v. PanSearch
-
Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Inc. v. NationalSearch
-
Luck v. UnitedSearch
-
The most extensive discussion reaching this result occurs in Donald v. WilsonSearch
-
CA6 1988). More frequently, courts employ Rule 403 without resolving the applicability of Rule 609(a)(1), as in Jones v. BoardSearch
-
Abshire v. WallsSearch
-
Radtke v. CessnaSearch
-
Czajka v. HickmanSearch
-
V Red Eagle, 695 F.2d 114 (CA5 1983). Accord, Hannah v. OverlandSearch
-
Wierstak v. HeffernanSearch
-
E.g., United States v. KueckerSearch
-
Brief for Petitioner in Jett v. DallasSearch
-
Burnet v. GuggenheimSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Green v. BockSearch
-
See Green v. ShearsonSearch
-
E.g., Howard v. GonzalesSearch
-
Accord, Linskey v. HeckerSearch
-
Cf. Midlantic National Bank v. NewSearch
-
Cf. NLRB v. PlasterersSearch
-
See D. Ginsberg & Sons, Inc. v. PopkinSearch
-
E.g., Murr v. StinsonSearch
-
Wounick v. HysmithSearch
-
Nesbitt v. AlliedSearch
-
Pasternak v. PanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial