Sunshine Piping, Inc.

19 Cited authorities

Huddleston v. United States
485 U.S. 681 (1988) Cited 2,433 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that under Rule 104(b), the "court simply examines all the evidence in the case and decides whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact . . . by a preponderance of the evidence"
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper
447 U.S. 752 (1980) Cited 2,923 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court may impose attorney's fee sanction against opposing counsel for “abusive litigation practices” only in “narrowly defined circumstances,” including where the court makes a finding that “counsel's conduct ... constituted or was tantamount to bad faith”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 656 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the employer bears the burden of negating causation in a mixed-motive discrimination case, noting "[i]t is fair that [the employer] bear the risk that the influence of legal and illegal motives cannot be separated."
U.S. v. Tarantino
846 F.2d 1384 (D.C. Cir. 1988) Cited 310 times
Holding that there is no constitutional right to hybrid representation, and affirming a conviction where the trial court told the defendant “that he had to choose between representing himself and being represented by appointed counsel”
N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 358 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
United States v. Morrison
98 F.3d 619 (D.C. Cir. 1996) Cited 133 times
Holding that a witness was "foreseeable" to the defendant because the defendant had prior dealings with the witness related to the case
U.S. v. Castillo
181 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 113 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant's broad denials of drug involvement warranted admission of extrinsic evidence of his prior arrest for cocaine possession
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.
360 U.S. 301 (1959) Cited 106 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred
U.S. v. Fleming
19 F.3d 1325 (10th Cir. 1994) Cited 99 times
Holding that Federal Rule 608 does not apply “when extrinsic evidence is used to show that a statement made by a defendant on direct examination is false, even if the statement is about a collateral issue”
United States v. Benedetto
571 F.2d 1246 (2d Cir. 1978) Cited 123 times
Holding that employees charged with receiving illegal payments may not seek to prove their innocence by demonstrating that on other occasions they did not act improperly

Sunshine Piping, Inc.

19 Cited authorities

Holding that under Rule 104(b), the "court simply examines all the evidence in the case and decides whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact . . . by a preponderance of the evidence"

Holding that a court may impose attorney's fee sanction against opposing counsel for “abusive litigation practices” only in “narrowly defined circumstances,” including where the court makes a finding that “counsel's conduct ... constituted or was tantamount to bad faith”

Holding that the employer bears the burden of negating causation in a mixed-motive discrimination case, noting "[i]t is fair that [the employer] bear the risk that the influence of legal and illegal motives cannot be separated."

Holding that there is no constitutional right to hybrid representation, and affirming a conviction where the trial court told the defendant “that he had to choose between representing himself and being represented by appointed counsel”

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

Holding that a witness was "foreseeable" to the defendant because the defendant had prior dealings with the witness related to the case

Holding that defendant's broad denials of drug involvement warranted admission of extrinsic evidence of his prior arrest for cocaine possession

Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred

Holding that Federal Rule 608 does not apply “when extrinsic evidence is used to show that a statement made by a defendant on direct examination is false, even if the statement is about a collateral issue”

Holding that employees charged with receiving illegal payments may not seek to prove their innocence by demonstrating that on other occasions they did not act improperly