Analyzing Shephard Indicators- Case Analysis and Citations in LexisAdvance

Analyzing Shephard Indicators- Case Analysis and Citations in LexisAdvance

Locate the following cases in LexisAdvance. For each case, explain which Shephard’s indicator was found, and the meaning behind the Shephard’s indicator. Also, look at the Shephards Report, and for each case, identify a case that cited your case, a case that provided positive treatment to it, and one that provided cautionary or negative treatment.

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, (1963)

Shepherd Indicator

Yellow Triangle

The meaning behind Shephard’s indicator

Possible negative treatment indicated (Citations, 1952; Inc, 1978 and Shepard’s signals and analysis, 2021)

The case that cited to your case

Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 127 S. Ct. 1173 (2007)

The case that provided positive treatment

Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 127 S. Ct. 1173 (2007)

Cases that provided cautionary or negative treatment

Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406, 124 S. Ct. 2504 (2004)

Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)

Shepherd Indicator

Yellow Triangle

The meaning behind Shephard’s indicator

Possible negative treatment indicated (Citations, 1952; Inc, 1978 and Shepard’s signals and analysis, 2021)

The case cited to your case

Elgin v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 567 U.S. 1, 132 S. Ct. 2126 (2012)

The case that provided positive treatment

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016)

Cases that provided cautionary or negative treatment

Elgin v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 567 U.S. 1, 132 S. Ct. 2126 (2012)

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Shepherd Indicator

Red Stop Sign

The meaning behind Shephard’s indicator

Warning – Negative treatment indicated (Citations, 1952; Inc., 1978 and Shepard’s signals and analysis, 2021)

The case cited to your case

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992)

The case that provided positive treatment

Moore v. E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 97 S. Ct. 1932 (1977)

Cases that provided cautionary or negative treatment

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992)

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 485 U.S. 933 (1988)

Shepherd Indicator

Blue Circle with A

The meaning behind Shephard’s indicator

Cited and neutral analysis indicated (Citations, 1952; Inc, 1978 and Shepard’s signals and analysis, 2021)

The case cited to your case

Lipsett v. Univ. of P.R., 864 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1988)

The case that provided positive treatment

Lipsett v. Univ. of P.R., 864 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1988)

Cases that provided cautionary or negative treatment

None

Locate the following statutes/rules in LexisAdvance. For each statute/rule, explain which Shephard’s indicator was found, the meaning behind the Shephard’s indicator, and list two cases that cite the statute/rule, along with each case’s treatment of the statute/rule.

18 USC 1956

Case

United States V. Skinner, 946 F.2d 176 (2d Cir. 1991)

United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012)

Treatment of the statute

United States V. Skinner, 946 F.2d 176 (2d Cir. 1991) had Positive treatment because the defendants were convicted in the right way despite the fact that their convictions were a result of many uncomplicated sales of cocaine and were different from conventional money laundering. This occurred because Congress was focusing on reaching conduct that was beyond concealing the earnings of criminal activity. United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) also had positive treatment because the court considered the provisions of the Fourth Amendment, hence ruling that placing a GPS tracking device on a car was in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

21 U.S.C. 848. Narrow your report to include only those cases from California that cite to the statute.

Cases

Jackson v. Vasquez, 1 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 1993)

United States v. Miskinis, 966 F.2d 1263 (9th Cir. 1992)

Treatment of the statute

The two cases had different treatments. The United States v. Miskinis, 966 F.2d 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) case had a positive treatment. It was argued that the statute may be applicable to an individual whose criminal conduct exclusively includes aiding and abetting the criminal conduct of others if that person is a kingpin in his individual right and if the criminal conduct aided and abetted is qualified under § 881. Therefore, an operator of a chemical supply house that manufactured chemicals for methamphetamine and sold it knowing that it would be used for illegal purposes and took various steps to enable customers to hide their identity and evade surveillance could be convicted under r § 848. The Jackson v. Vasquez, 1 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 1993) case had a cautionary or negative treatment because the provisions of 21 USCS § 848(q) do not allow a district court to issue a prisoner’s ex parte request and a coercive order against a state official. It also prohibits the district court from compelling a state prison warden to transport a prisoner at the expense of the state for medical tests.

Colorado Revised Statute § 15-11-502. Narrow your report to include only those cases citing to the statute from the last 15 years in Colorado.

Case

Caldwell v. Caldwell (In re Estate of Schumacher), 253 P.3d 1280 (Colo. App. 2011)

Estate of Saueressig, 136 P.3d 201 (Cal. 2006)

Treatment of the statute

The treatment of Caldwell v. Caldwell (In re Estate of Schumacher), 253 P.3d 1280 (Colo. App. 2011) was neutral. This treatment occurred because signatures are not needed by a cross-out to effectuate a partial revocation. When a holographic will is executed in the right way, no additional acknowledgement or signature is required to grant compliance with a cross-out if the intent of the testator has been proved by convincing and clear evidence. The treatment of the Estate of Saueressig, 136 P.3d 201 (Cal. 2006) was cautionary because a notarized but otherwise unwitnessed will was upheld under the harmless-error rule of Section 2-503.

9 CFR 381.171 (d)

Case

AMERICAN MEAT v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 496 F. Supp. 64 (E.D. Va. 1980)

American Meat Institute v. USDA, 760 F.3d 18

Treatment of the statute

Negative treatment for both cases because the court argued that the Department of Agriculture rule concerning the label “Turkey Ham-Cured Turkey Thigh Meat” for the all-turkey product was arbitrary because the agency found the rule misled some consumers to believe the product contained pork, but declined to order that any “Turkey Ham” product be labelled “imitation” ham because it required more research and analysis from the agency.

References

Citations, S. (1952). Shepard’s citations: A detailed presentation of the scope and functions of citation books with illustrative examples and analysis of their relation to other methods of legal research. Problems, questions, and answers in the use of Shepard’s citations to be used with the 1952 edition of how to use Shepard’s citations.

Inc, S. C. (1978). How to use Shepard’s citations: A presentation of the scope and functions of Shephard’s citation books and services with methods and techniques to enhance their value in legal research.

Shepard’s signals and analysis. (2021). LexisNexis® Support Center. https://lexisnexis.custhelp.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1088155/~/shepards-signals-and-analysis

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Locate the following cases in LexisAdvance. For each case, explain which Shephard’s indicator was found, and the meaning behind the Shephard’s indicator. Also, look at the Shephards Report, and for each case, identify a case that cited your case, a case that provided positive treatment to it, and one that provided cautionary or negative treatment.

• Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, (1963)
• Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
• Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
• Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 485 U.S. 933 (1988)

Locate the following statutes/rules in LexisAdvance. For each statute/rule, explain which Shephard’s indicator was found, the meaning behind the Shephard’s indicator, and list two cases that cite the statute/rule, along with each case’s treatment of the statute/rule.

• 18 USC 1956
• 21 U.S.C. 848. Narrow your report to include only those cases from California that cite the statute.
• Colorado Revised Statute § 15-11-502. Narrow your report to include only those cases citing the statute from the last 15 years in Colorado.
• 9 CFR 381.171 (d).