text:
Lucy E Edwards focuses her research on the stratigraphy of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. Her specialty is dinoflagellates (a type of algae), and she studies their fossil cysts for what they reveal about the time and environment of deposition and how they came to be preserved in the fossil record. She also specializes in stratigraphic nomenclature and methods of stratigraphic correlation.
1974, 1975 (summers) Biostratigrapher, Exxon Production Research Co., Houston, TX.
1977-present Research Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Courses taught at George Washington University, Indiana University, University of Kansas, University of Oslo, George Mason University, Türkiye Petrolleri AO.
Powars, D.S. Johnson, G.H., Edwards, L.E., and Berquist, C.R., 2016, Geology of the Virginia Coastal Plain: Continuous cores and geophysical surveys bring a quantum leap to our understanding, in Bailey, C., Sherwood, W.C., Eaton, Scott, and Powars, D.S., eds., The Geology of Virginia: Martinsburg, Virginia Museum of Natural History Special Publication 18, p. 193-240.
Godfrey, S. J., Uhen, M.D., Osborne, J.E., and Edwards, L.E., 2016, A new specimen of Agorophius pygmaeus (Agorophiidae, Odontoceti, Cetacea) from the Early Oligocene Ashley Formation of South Carolina, U.S.A.: Journal of Paleontology, v. 90, no. 1, p. 154-169.
Weems, R.E., Albright, L.B., Bybell, L.M., Cicimurri, D.J., Edwards, L.E., Harris, W.B., Lewis, W.C., Osborne, J.E., Sanders, A.E., and Self-Trail., J.M., 2016, Stratigraphic revision of the Cooper Group and the Chandler Bridge and Edisto Formations in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina: Southeastern Geology, v. 49, p. 1-24.
Finney, S.C.. and Edwards, L.E., 2016, The “Anthropocene” epoch: Scientific decision or political statement?: GSA Today, v. 26, no. 3-4, p. 4-10.
Naeser, C.W,. Naeser, N.D.. Newell, W.L., Southworth, S., Edwards, L.E., and Weems, R.E., 2016, Erosion and deposition history of the Appalachian as recorded in detrital zircon fission-track ages and lithic detritus in Atlantic Coastal Plain sediments: American Journal of Science, v. 316, p. 110-168.
Larina, E., Garb, M., Landman, N., Dastas, N., Thibault, N., Edwards, L., Phillips, G., Rovelli, R., Myers, C., Naujokaityte, J., 2016, Upper Maastrichtian ammonite biostratigraphy of the Gulf Coastal Plain (Mississippi Embayment, southern USA): Cretaceous Research, v. 60, p. 128–151.
Easton, R.M., Edwards, L.E., Orndorff, R.C., Duguet, M., and Ismael Ferrusquía-Villafranca, I., 2015, NACSN- Note 67 – Application for Revision of Article 37, Lithodemic Units, of the North American Stratigraphic Code: Stratigraphy, v. 12, no. 1, p. 39-45.
Zonneveld, K.A., Marret, F., Versteegh, G.J., Bogus, K., Bonnet, S., Bouimetarhan, I., Crouch, E., de Vernal, A., Elshanawany, R., Edwards, L. and Esper, O., 2013, Atlas of modern dinoflagellate cyst distribution based on 2405 data points: Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, v. 191, p.1-197.
Alemán González, W.B., Powars, D.S., Seefelt, E.L., Edwards, L.E., Self-Trail, J.M., Durand, C.T., Schultz, A.P., and McLaughlin, P.P., 2012, Preliminary physical stratigraphy, biostratigraphy, and geophysical data of the USGS South Dover Bridge Core, Talbot County, Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1218, 16 p. plus appendixes.
Edwards, L.E., 2012. Dinocyst taphonomy, impact craters, cyst ghosts, and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Palynology, v. 36, sup. 1, p. 80-95.
Weems, R.E., Edwards, L.E., Osborne, J.E., and Alford, Aaron A., 2011, An occurrence of the protocetid whale “Eocetus” wardii in the middle Eocene Piney Point Formation of Virginia: Journal of Paleontology, 85(2), p. 271–278.
Edwards, L.E., Powars, D.S., Horton, J.W., Jr., Gohn, G.S., Self-Trail, J.M., and Litwin, R.J., 2010, Inside the crater, outside the crater: Stratigraphic details of the margin of the Chesapeake Bay impact structure, Virginia, USA, in Reimold, W.U., and Gibson, R.L., eds., Large Meteorite Impacts and Planetary Evolution IV: Geological Society of America Special Paper 465, p. 319-393, doi: 10.1130/2010.2465(19).
Landman, N.H., Johnson, R.O., Garb, M.P., Edwards, L.E., Kyte, F.T., 2010, Ammonites from the Cretaceous/Teritary Boundary, New Jersey, USA., in Tanabe, K., Shigeta, Y., Sasaki, T., and Hirano, H., (eds.): Cephalopods – Past and Present, Tokai Uiversity Press, Tokyo, p. 287-295.
Horton, J.W., Jr., Gibson, R.L., Reimold, W.U., Wittmann, A., Gohn, G.S., and Edwards, L.E., 2009, Geologic Column for the ICDP-USGS Eyreville B Core, Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure: Impactites and Crystalline Rocks, 1766-1096 m depth, in Gohn, G.S., Koeberl, C., Miller, K.G., and Reimold, W.U., eds., The ICDP-USGS Deep Drilling Project in the Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure: Results from the Eyreville Core Holes: Geological Society of America Special Paper 458, p. 21-49.
Edwards, L.E., Powars, D.S., Gohn, G.S., Dypvik, H., 2009, Geologic columns for the ICDP-USGS Eyreville A and B cores, Chesapeake Bay impact structure: Sediment-clast breccias, 1096 to 444 m depth,in Gohn, G.S., Koeberl, C., Miller, K.G., and Reimold, W.U., eds., The ICDP-USGS Deep Drilling Project in the Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure: Results from the Eyreville Core Holes: Geological Society of America Special Paper 458, p. 51-89.
Edwards, L.E., Powars, D.S., Browning, J.V., McLaughlin, P.P., Miller, K.G., Self-Trail, J.M., Kulpecz A.A., and Elbra, T., 2009, Geologic columns for the ICDP-USGS Eyreville A and C cores, Chesapeake Bay impact structure: Postimpact sediments 444 to 0 m depth, in Gohn, G.S., Koeberl, C., Miller, K.G., and Reimold, W.U., eds., The ICDP-USGS Deep Drilling Project in the Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure: Results from the Eyreville Core Holes: Geological Society of America Special Paper 458, p. 91-114.
Durand, C.T., Edwards, L.E., Malinconico, M.L, and Powars, D.S., 2009, Supplemental materials for the ICDP-USGS Eyreville A, B, and C coreholes, Chesapeake Bay impact structure: Core-box photographs, coring-run tables,, and depth-conversion files, in Gohn, G.S., Koeberl, C., Miller, K.G., and Reimold, W.U., eds., The ICDP-USGS Deep Drilling Project in the Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure: Results from the Eyreville Core Holes: Geological Society of America Special Paper 458, pp.115-118.
Powars, D.S., Catchings, R.D., Goldman, M.R., Gohn, G.S., Horton, J.W., Jr., Rymer, M.J., Gandhok, G., and Edwards, L.E., 2009, High-resolution seismic reflection images across the ICDP-USGS Eyreville deep drilling site, Chesapeake Bay impact structure, in Gohn, G.S., Koeberl, C., Miller, K.G., and Reimold, W.U., eds., The ICDP-USGS Deep Drilling Project in the Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure: Results from the Eyreville Core Holes: Geological Society of America Special Paper 458, p. 209-233.
Gohn, G.S., Powars, D.S., Dypvik, H., and Edwards, L.E., 2009, Rock-avalanche and ocean-resurge deposits in the late Eocene Chesapeake Bay impact structure: Evidence from the ICDP-USGS Eyreville cores, Virginia, USA, in Gohn, G.S., Koeberl, C., Miller, K.G., and Reimold, W.U., eds., The ICDP-USGS Deep Drilling Project in the Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure: Results from the Eyreville Core Holes: Geological Society of America Special Paper 458, p. 587-615.
Self-Trail, J.M., Edwards, L.E., and Litwin, R.L., 2009. Paleontological interpretations of crater processes and infilling of synimpact sediments from the Chesapeake Bay impact structure, in Gohn, G.S., Koeberl, C., Miller, K.G., and Reimold, W.U., eds., The ICDP-USGS Deep Drilling Project in the Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure: Results from the Eyreville Core Holes: Geological Society of America Special Paper 458, p. 633-654.
Browning, J.V., Miller, K.G., McLaughlin, P.P., Edwards, L.E., Powars, D.S., Kulpecz A.A., Wade, B.S., and Feigenson M.D., 2009, Integrated sequence stratigraphy of the Eyreville coreholes, Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure inner basin, in Gohn, G.S., Koeberl, C., Miller, K.G., and Reimold, W.U., eds., The ICDP-USGS Deep Drilling Project in the Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure: Results from the Eyreville Core Holes: Geological Society of America Special Paper 458, p. 775-810.
Kulpecz, A.A., Miller, K.G, Browning, J.V., Edwards, L.E., Powars., D.S., McLaughlin, P.P., Harris, A.D., and Feigenson, M.D., 2009, Postimpact deposition in the Chesapeake Bay impact structure: Variations in eustasy, compaction, sediment supply, and passive-aggressive tectonism, in Gohn, G.S., Koeberl, C., Miller, K.G., and Reimold, W.U., eds., The ICDP-USGS Deep Drilling Project in the Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure: Results from the Eyreville Core Holes: Geological Society of America Special Paper 458, p. 811-837.
Aubry, Marie-Pierre; Fluegeman, Richard H.; Edwards, Lucy E.; Pratt, Brian R.; Brett, Carlton E.
Witts, J.D., Landman, N.H., Garb, M.P., Boas, C., Larina, E., Rovelli, R., Edwards, L.E., Sherrell, R.M. and Cochran, J.K., 2018. A fossiliferous spherule-rich bed at the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) boundary in Mississippi, USA: Implications for the K–Pg mass extinction event in the Mississippi Embayment and Eastern Gulf Coastal Plain. Cretaceous Research 91:127-147.
Weems, Robert E.; Edwards, Lucy E.; Landacre, Bryan D.
Godfrey, Stephen J.; Uhen, Mark D.; Osborne, Jason E.; Edwards, Lucy E.
The “Anthropocene” epoch: Scientific decision or political statement?
Finney, Stanley C.; Edwards, Lucy E.
Naeser, C.W.; Naeser, N.D.; Edwards, Lucy E.; Weems, Robert E.; Southworth, C. Scott; Newell, Wayne L.
Weems, Robert E.; Albright, Barry; Bybell, Laurel M.; Cicimurri, David J.; Edwards, Lucy E.; Harris, W. Burleigh; Lewis, William C.; Osborne, Jason E.; Sanders, Albert E.; Self-Trail, Jean M.
Larina, E., Garb, M., Landman, N., Dastas, N., Thibault, N., Edwards, L., Phillips, G., Rovelli, R., Myers, C., Naujokaityte, J., 2016, Upper Maastrichtian ammonite biostratigraphy of the Gulf Coastal Plain (Mississippi Embayment, southern USA), Cretaceous Research, v. 60, p. 128–151.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


On August 15, 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a published decision in Matter of L-G-H-, 26 I&N Dec. 365 (BIA 2014), regarding the immigration consequences of a conviction for violating Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a)(1) (sale, manufacture, delivery or possession with intent to sell, manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance). With this decision, the Board has made it clear that unless a non-citizen is convicted of actual sale or possession with the intent to sell a controlled substance, a conviction under this statute will not be an aggravated felony for immigration purposes. A conviction for manufacturing, delivering or possession of a controlled substance with the intent to manufacture or deliver, will still be a controlled substance offense, and will make a non-citizen both inadmissible and deportable, but it will not be an aggravated felony.
This is an important distinction because if a non-citizen is convicted of an aggravated felony, they are not eligible for multiple forms of Immigration relief. These forms of relief include: asylum, cancellation of removal for either permanent and non-permanent residents, voluntary departure, and possibly adjustment of status. A conviction for an aggravated felony will also make you subject to mandatory detention if you are detained by immigration, you will not be eligible for to become a citizen if you are a lawful permanent resident. If you are convicted of an aggravated felony and are not a lawful permanent resident, then you may be subject to administrative removal. Administrative removal is what is referred to as a “no-process” removal where officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and not an immigration judge, decide whether you should be removed from the U.S.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a published decision in 2013 regarding this same statute. In Donawa v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2013), the Court stated that there are two ways that the government can prove that a conviction is an aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(B). The first method is through the drug trafficking crime clause and the second is through the “illicit trafficking” clause. In Donawa, the Court decided that Fla. Stat. § 893, which govern controlled substances, lacks a certain element that makes it impossible to prove that convictions under this statute were aggravated felonies under the drug trafficking crime clause. The Court left open the possibility that a conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893 could still contain a trafficking element and therefore me an “illicit trafficking” offense, and an aggravated felony, pursuant to Matter of Sancez-Cornejo, 25 I&N Dec. 273 (BIA 2010).
The decision in Matter of L-G-H- settles the question left open by the Court in Donawa. The Board has determined that if ICE can prove that a non-citizen was convicted for sale or possession with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, then they are an aggravated felon under INA § 101(a)(43)(B).
The experienced immigration and criminal defense attorneys at Shorstein, Lasnetski & Gihon can protect your immigration rights in criminal court. If you are a non-citizen who is being prosecuted for a drug offense in Florida, we can help you to protect your immigration status and limit the negative immigration consequences of your criminal prosecution. Call us today.


text:
The U.S. Supreme Court today in King v. Burwell, Case No. 14-114, rejected a significant challenge to the Affordable Care Act, holding that tax credits for purchased insurance may be provided to persons who are enrolled in a health insurance exchange created by the federal government. It was argued that the tax credits could only be given to persons enrolled in an exchange “established by the State….” per the language of the Act. If the Supreme Court agreed with that interpretation that would mean that persons in states who did not create health insurance exchanges would be frozen out of receiving the tax credits.
Critical to the decision was the Court’s disagreement with the assertion that the language “established by the State….” was plain and unambiguous. The Court held that, when it was read in context, this language was ambiguous insofar as it could be read as meaning only exchanges established by a state or exchanges established by both the states and federal government. Once the Court determined that it could treat this language as ambiguous it therefore was able to review its meaning within the broader structure of the Affordable Care Act to ascertain its precise meaning. The Court held that if it accepted the argument advanced by those challenging the law it would effectively destroy the very purpose for which the Act was enacted and that Congress could not have intended such a result. In sum, the tax credits are necessary in order for a federal exchange to function and the Court rejected the claim that a contrary result was ever intended by Congress.
Historically the Ohio Constitution has been interpreted as affording Ohio citizens protection against infringement of their rights in a manner equivalent to that afforded by the U.S. Constitution. But in State v. Brown, 2015-Ohio-2438, decided June 23, 2015, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Art. I, Sec. 14 of the Ohio Constitution affords greater protection against unreasonable search and seizure than the Fourth Amendment.
The case centered around the authority of a township police officer in a township with a population of less than 50,000 to stop a driver on an interstate highway for a marked lanes violation. The authority of township officers is specifically limited by the Ohio Revised Code and, pertinent to the case, it does not give an officer authority to enforce such offenses as speeding, marked lane violations, and use of turn signals on an interstate highway. The wrinkle in the case is that the Fourth Amendment has been held to not be violated when an officer acts outside of their statutory jurisdiction as long as the person was stopped pursuant to probable cause that an offense was committed.
The Ohio Supreme Court held the Ohio Constitution goes farther than the Fourth Amendment and is violated when a traffic stop is made by an officer outside of the limits of their statutory jurisdiction and authority. The Court’s decision is specific to minor misdemeanor traffic offenses and not instances where a more serious crime may have been committed. But it appears to be a decision that will cause future debate as the parameters of the Court’s decision regarding Art. I, Sec. 14 are tested.
Raisin lovers may want to take note that the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Horne v. Department of Agriculture, Case No. 14-275, on June 22, 2015, issued a decision regarding an obscure raisin law. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate “marketing orders” to maintain stable markets for certain agricultural products. The marketing order for raisins resulted in the creation of the Raisin Administrative Committee. The Committee apparently took a rather liberal interpretation of its mandate to the extent that raisin growers were required to set aside a certain percentage of their crop – 47% in 2002-2003, 30% in 2003-2004 – which the government took free of charge. Those raisins were then disposed of as the Committee saw fit. They may have been sold in noncompetitive markets, donated, or otherwise disposed of in furtherance of the program. The growers only received the net proceeds of the program (less the government’s expenses in administering it). Nothing guaranteed the growers ever received a cent and, in fact, in one year they did receive nothing. The Hornes are family growers who were not very happy with turning a large percentage of their crop over to the government for potentially nothing in return and eventually refused to do so. They were fined the fair market value (of their own raisins) plus additional civil penalties.
The Hornes believed the government program was an unconstitutional taking of their property without just compensation, as required by the Fifth Amendment. The government contended that the program was not a taking as (i) personal property is afforded less protection than real property, (ii) the program conferred a benefit in the form of an orderly raisin market, (iii) the growers maintained a net interest in the raisins, and (iv) they could just plant something else. In essence, the government argued the program was a regulatory “use restriction” and, while affecting private property, did not amount to a taking.
The Supreme Court rejected these arguments. It held that personal property enjoys the same protection under the Takings Clause as real property. This program required the physical transfer of the crop to the government which then held title to it and sole control over its disposition. The fact that the growers are provided some benefit in the form of net proceeds did not change the character of the taking.
Sign Regulation: Supreme Court Strikes Down Code as Content-Based.
Some local governments attempt to regulate outdoor signage by classifying them according to their purpose or message. They may regulate them as “political signs” or “directional signs” and further define those sign types by the message they display. Doing so invokes the First Amendment’s protection against the infringement of free speech. These local governments, while attempting to permit certain types of signs for practical reasons, nonetheless unwittingly violate the First Amendment by favoring some speech over others based upon the content of the sign’s message. Such regulation is subject to the most exacting of judicial scrutiny (“strict scrutiny”) and rarely withstands constitutional challenge.
This is what occurred in the case of Reed v. Town of Gilbert, U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 13-502, decided on June 18, 2015. Gilbert, Arizona enacted a sign code which permitted certain types of temporary outdoor signs. Examples included “political signs” which by definition pertained to elections and “temporary directional signs” which directed members of the public to certain types of specified events. Other non-commercial messages were prohibited from being displayed, or, were subject to different restrictions based upon their content. The Supreme Court rejected Gilbert’s assertions that aesthetics and traffic safety were relevant to the degree of judicial scrutiny to be applied because the regulations were facially content-based. The Court further rejected aesthetics and traffic safety in this instance as being a “compelling governmental interest” which is “narrowly tailored to achieve that interest” as required under the strict scrutiny test because ultimately some signs were permitted solely based upon messages while identical signs would not, again, based solely upon their message.
HSK has developed a content-neutral model sign code which has been adopted by local governments which addresses this legal issue as well as the myriad of other legal issues present in municipal sign regulation.
Employment Law: Why Labels Don’t Matter.
Businesses often classify persons performing services for them as independent contractors and structure compensation — often on a set fee, per job basis — as one of the justifications for the classification. The difficulty is that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires a more nuanced analysis. The recent case of Keller v. Miri Microsystems, Sixth Circuit Case No. 14-1430, decided March 26, 2015, provides an example of just how complex the analysis can be.
Keller worked for Miri Microsystems installing and repairing satellite-internet dishes for its customers six days a week. He was classified as an independent contractor and paid at a predetermined rate per job without regard to the number of hours worked. He was free to accept or refuse jobs and to set his own hours. He used his own van and equipment for the work. He carried his own commercial liability insurance. Keller nonetheless alleged that he was an employee within the meaning of the FLSA and therefore entitled to additional time and a half compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week. The Sixth Circuit held that, despite the foregoing facts, sufficient additional facts were present for the case to proceed to trial on the question. This holding was the result of applying the so-called economic-reality test.
The economic-reality test examines 6 non-exclusive factors to ascertain whether a person is an employee within the meaning of the FLSA and therefore subject to its protection. They are 1) the permanency of the relationship between the parties, 2) the degree of skill required for rendering the services, 3) the worker’s investment in equipment or materials for the job, 4) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss, 5) the degree of the alleged employer’s right to control the manner in which the work is performed, and 6) whether the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer’s business. All of these are focused on the ultimate question of whether the person has an economic dependence on the alleged employer.
In this case, while he was not required to, Keller did work exclusively for the company for 20 months as he has no time to do other work. He was provided a significant component of his training by the company in order to perform the installations. Keller’s investment consisted only of the use of his wife’s van and tools that are commonly found in households for non-professional work. Further, there was nothing to suggest that Keller could increase his profit through efficiencies or hiring help. Also significant was that the work being performed by Keller was an integral aspect of the company’s business. In fact, installing and repairing dishes was its sole business.
The business may ultimately prevail in this case. But the costs associated with defending it as well as the uncertainty of the result are likely significant business disruptions. It illustrates the need for a studied analysis of a business’s employment practices to avoid such legal complications.
Protective orders issued in domestic and criminal cases are intended to ensure that persons are kept free from potential harassment and harm. But what about their pets? Senate Bill 177 which became effective on March 23, 2015 amended various statutes to make it clear that a court can now include a person’s pets within the scope of the protective order. Specifically, the order may include “companion animals.” Ohio law defines a “companion animal” as “any animal that is kept inside a residential dwelling and any dog or cat regardless of where it is kept.” It does not include livestock or any wild animal. These amendments now definitively remove any grey areas that may have existed under prior law.
Is an outgoing 9-1-1 call between a police dispatcher and an accused in a murder case exempt from Ohio’s public records law? In the recent case of State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 2015-Ohio-974, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the recording is a public record and should have been released upon request. Ohio law exempts various records from release, inclusive trial-preparation and confidential law-enforcement investigatory records. The 9-1-1 recording fell within none of those exceptions. An interesting aspect of the case was the prosecuting attorney’s concern that release of the recording would unfairly prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial as protected by the 6th Amendment. The Ohio Supreme Court recognized the importance of this concern, however, it ultimately rejected the claim on the basis that there was no evidence presented that release of the record would, in fact, cause the accused such prejudice at trial. The Court further held that, in addition to statutory damages, an award of reasonable attorney’s fees was warranted. The case again illustrates the need for local governments to closely scrutinize the bases for any denials of public records requests.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals recently decided a case involving the right of an adult child to visit with an incompetent parent. Many families experience the trouble that sometimes occurs when a child has visitation with a parent at a nursing home or assisted living environment and the parent is later determined to have been agitated by the visit(s). Usually it is another family member who perceives the agitation, and a family dispute ensues. The probate court has the jurisdiction to address this type of problem, but the probate court must observe due process when entering orders regarding such problems. In this case, the probate judge ordered that a particular child have a psychological assessment before having any more visits with his father. The order was based on a report issued by a guardian ad litem, but was not supported by actual testimony. Even worse, the adult child was not put on notice that the court would be considering such an extreme response, and he was not called to testify or permitted to testify. The court of appeals determined that placing such a restriction on an adult child without a hearing was impermissible. Arguments about who should visit mom or dad and under what restrictions are more common that most persons know. A good probate lawyer would help prevent such disagreements from spinning out of control and into the probate court.
The second district court of appeals recently underscored the perils of pro se representation and how much it can cost someone personally to make a mistake as a fiduciary. A woman died without a will. Two of her three children were still alive, as well as the children of a child that had predeceased her. One of the woman’s children opened up an estate but did not include the children of the deceased sibling for distribution of assets or even notice of the probate. Ten years later those overlooked grandchildren found out that were left out. They sued to get their money from their aunt and won. The aunt that acted as the fiduciary will now have to dig into her own pocket and come up with money for her nieces and nephews. She will also have to cover for the money owed from the amount she overpaid her surviving sibling if that sibling no longer has the money. If you think that this is only limited to probate court, and that a trust can save you from such a fate, think again. Overlooked trust beneficiaries can also sue. Hire an attorney to make sure you get it right. Those checks you sign with all of those zeros in them can come back to haunt you in the worst way.
The Sixth District Court of Appeals has recently ruled that an appeal from probate court cannot be a substitute for a proper records request. The appellant wanted to obtain a transcript from a hearing at probate court. The case was closed and an appeal of the closing of the case had not been filed. Asking for a transcript on a closed file is irregular, and the probate court refused. An appeal of that refusal was made and the court of appeals stated that the appellant should have filed a different type of suit to get public records, which is what the transcript actually is. The moral of the story is that when you have a litigated or controversial matter before the probate court, take a court reporter with you to record the hearing and then transcribe the testimony if you need it.
The Ninth District Court of Appeals recently held that a promissory note payable to a deceased person could be the basis of a suit by the estate fiduciary for recovery of the money. If the person you borrowed money from dies, do not think your obligation is over. Once the probate court appoints a fiduciary for the estate, that fiduciary can take action in court to collect what is owed, especially if the debt is documented in writing.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals has recently added to the body of law regarding payment of money to a beneficiary because of the death of an account owner. Probate court does not get involved in these types of cases, but the issues are certainly related to what is decided in probate court. In this particular case, a life insurance policy had a beneficiary listed, but the policy owner sent a letter to the life insurance company indicating an intent to change the beneficiary to the name of her new husband, but she never filled out the form she was sent. The policy owner later remarried after being made a widow by the husband she wanted to indicate as the new beneficiary some years prior. Amazingly, even that husband died before she did. When she did die, uncertainty existed as to who she wanted to have the money. The court ruled that the trial judge had to find out who the policy holder really wanted to benefit. The change of beneficiary form no longer controls once a dispute has been filed in court and the life insurance company asks the court who should get the money. This holding also applies to other types of arrangements where money passes because of the death of an account owner or policy owner; i.e. life insurance, IRA’s, and pensions.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals has recently held that a deceased person can be held liable for punitive damages, and that the money owed could be collected against the deceased person’s probate estate. In what the court termed as a case of first impression in Ohio, it decided that the propriety of permitting a punitive damage award to be assessed against a deceased person made more sense than denying such a result. The court’s most compelling point, in this writer’s opinion, was that the beneficiaries of the estate should not get a distribution of money that survived going to a violated person simply because the wrongdoer died during the suit. It makes good sense to me. The court noted that if the decedent had not died the money would certainly have been owed.
The moral of the story is stay on guard about who it is in a position of trust, and demand to see all of the paperwork backing up actions that are taken, and, above all, hire an attorney who doesn’t need to have the judge do the job the attorney should have been doing. A restraining order would have been the first item of business when the last minute signature card changes came to light. Don’t argue while the money is being consumed. Go after it immediately.
Good job to the judge and the court of appeals to strengthen the protections that need to be in place when individuals end up with all of the money who were not even provided for in the will.
A decision was recently released by the Sixth District Court of Appeals regarding a survivorship deed and whether a conveyance by both of the survivorship tenants to a third party of less than the entire acreage in the jointly held property terminated their survivorship interest in the remaining acreage. The Court of Appeals held that such a transfer does not terminate the survivorship status of the remaining acreage. After the cotenants made the first transfer together, 25 acres of property continued to be held as joint with right of survivorship. Later, one of the joint owners sold only her share to a developer. The developer thought he owned her one-half interest. However, when that joint tenant died the other joint tenant recorded paperwork at the recorder’s office to cause the “transferred” jointly held interest to be registered in her name alone. The developer was in danger of of being frozen out so the developer claimed that when the two joint tenants conveyed part of their property, that their joint tenancy over all of the property was destroyed. The Court of Appeals said no. The same result would have occurred had the probate court been asked to rule on the issue. If A and B own 50 acres joint with right of survivorship, and they sell 25 acres to a developer, the 25 acres becomes the property of the developer but the other 25 acres remains as joint with right of survivorship between A and B. If A or B then tries to sell his or her one-half interest in the remaining 25 acres, he or she must get the agreement of the co-tenant holding right of survivorship. In this case, the developer paid for property for which it will never hold valid title. This is why title insurance policies are issued.
The Twelfth District Court of Appeals for Butler County recently appointed a corporate entity as guardian of the person and estate of the adult son instead of one of his parents. The Court noted that both the mother and the father of the adult child were unable to control his actions. This is a case which is likely to be repeated as the groundswell of younger incompetent adult and semi-competent persons begin affecting public safety forces and public social service personnel. The diagnosis of autism cases is ballooning and those children are becoming adults. The son lived at home and was clearly incompetent but was capable enough to live at home with the oversight of his parents. However, the strong, young adult male easily overcame the physical ability of his aging parents to control him. This will be an area where there will be few answers. Young children can be controlled, but with the coming of adolescence and beyond, control of the physical behavior of stronger, younger individuals by their aging parents will fail.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals for Richland County decided a probate matter concerning joint and survivor bank accounts, transfer on death bank accounts, and general durable and health care power of attorney documents. The Court of Appeals applied a testamentary capacity analysis to execution of bank account documents and power of attorney documents. The Court of Appeals relied upon a 1928 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court to hold that a beneficiary designation on a bank account should receive the same standard of review as that of an execution of a Will. No other legal authority was supplied by the Court, but a reading of the Supreme Court case it cited shows that no reference exists in it to a beneficiary designation of bank account. On such an important probate matter, the Fifth District Court of Appeals should have provided supplemental citation to hold that testamentary capacity is all that is needed for proper execution of a bank beneficiary designation form or a durable power of attorney. Others would argue that contractual capacity is what is needed, which is a higher level of mental capacity than testamentary capacity.
Does inviting guest clergy to give an invocation at the opening of a public meeting violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment? Not in the case of Greece v. Galloway in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 5-4 majority, held that the Town of Greece, New York did not violate the 1st Amendment by opening its town board meetings with a prayer delivered by a local member of the clergy. The town’s practice was to invite local clergy members who were willing and available to attend a meeting. Although the clergy members delivering the prayers were all of Christian faith, it was the town’s practice to not exclude any faith, or even atheists, from delivering the opening invocation. The town further exercised no control over the content of the invocations. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the Establishment Clause requires these opening invocations to be non-sectarian, however, the Court warned that a practice that denigrates non-believers or religious minorities, seeks converts, or which furthers some improper governmental purpose would likely not pass constitutional scrutiny.
The Third District court of appeals recently used one of my favorite remedies, the constructive trust. Ex-husband forgot to change the beneficiary designation from his ex-wife to his children after the divorce, but the court found that language in the separation agreement could be used to let the ex-wife get the proceeds just and only long enough for the court to place them in a trust for the children. Although this sounds like a probate case, it is not. Probate courts have limited jurisdiction and resort sometimes must be made to general division courts to deliver justice. Here, the probate court would be powerless to impose a constructive trust on the life insurance proceeds. Your attorney had better know when to choose correctly between probate court and general division court for the proper relief.
The Ohio Supreme Court recently upheld a twenty thousand dollar attorney fee award against a litigant and the litigant’s attorney for frivolous conduct. Probate court is unfortunately a place where frivolous conduct occurs because some attorneys and their clients will not accept logic. Now that the supreme court has staked out the propriety of awarding tens of thousands of dollars against litigants and attorneys who waste the time of others, it is likely that local courts may be more likely to follow suit. The court defined frivolous conduct as filing or pursuing a civil action that is not warranted under existing law, cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law, or cannot be supported by a good faith argument for the establishment of new law. Probate court is not for putting grieving persons through pointless litigation. If it happens, let us hope probate judges will bear down on those who abuse others and the system.
The thorny and unwieldy issue of forced medication of an involuntarily hospitalized mental patient was recently reviewed by the Tenth district court of appeals. Not addressed is the growing problem of the necessity of such action for individuals not yet hospitalized or recently released. The medical literature suggests that mental health problems are growing. In cases of emergency, probate court jurisdiction is invoked to provide an answer for persons presenting as a danger to themselves or others. But should the system be geared to require an emergency to provide a solution to chronic problems ? Many individuals do not want to take their medication; no surprise there. When such individuals have unilaterally been weaned long enough, the problems that led to the medication prescription start all over again. Probate courts and the higher appellate courts must start to address this problem. Legislation is more likely necessary. Persons appointed to be a guardian by probate court for mentally ill individuals living in the community are placed at risk when trying to manage their ward’s medication ingestion. Is the guardian violating the civil rights of the ward ? Is an assault being committed ? Seek help and have the benefit of a recommendation of a treating physician and a lawyer.
The 2nd district court of appeals has recently ruled that he who hesitates is lost. In what could have been a probate headache, a foreclosure case was filed against an individual who later died during the pendency of the case. The bank had a requirement under the law to substitute the probate appointed executor of the estate to the foreclosure case. Over a year went by and the bank took no action. The foreclosure case ultimately proceeded, but the bank lost the right to make a claim against the probate assets because it waited too long. The assets of the estate escaped what is known as a deficiency judgment, which can occur if the property is sold for less than what was owed to the bank.
Our very own 11th District court of appeals has ruled that the divorced parents of an adult disabled child may be given visitation rights over the objection of the other parent if such visitation is in the best interests of the adult child. The court further held that there is no absolute right to either parent to have visitation, and upheld the Geauga county probate court’s denial of the father’s visitation request because the adult child did not want it and the court determined it was not in the child’s best interests. Probate court is the only court that can handle visitation issues between divorced parents of an adult disabled child. You need a probate attorney who is able to handle such a case for you in the probate court.
The seventh district court of appeals just recently denied a motion for sanctions against an attorney who was alleged to be filing frivolous and misleading pleadings with a court. It is high time the courts started granting sanctions against attorneys for bad behavior. There is a certain percentage of attorneys out there, a small percentage, but a group none the less that torments the rest of the practicing bar with nonsense lawsuits and incompetent representation. It is only when this group starts getting punished that they will stop causing damage to the community with their activity. They get away with it and will not stop until consequences are levied. If your lawyer does not have the sense to tell you that your case is a waste of your time and money, then that lawyer is just using you. Why hire someone who is going to charge you good money after bad and also cause you to suffer again in the face of your enemy when you lose?
A recent court of appeals case was issued regarding insurance coverage. Probate administration can also concern insurance coverage if the deceased person caused an automobile accident or other act of negligence that injured another person. Depending on when you admit the will to probate and open the estate, you may inadvertently expose estate assets to a damage claim by the injured party. Hire an attorney who knows how the system works so you do not devalue the probate estate by making mistakes in timing of filing of documents with the probate court.
Probate administration usually involves the stay of the deceased person at a nursing home prior to death. Sometimes it’s an outstanding bill that needs to be paid, but sometimes it is nursing home negligence. Ohio courts have once again stood up for the patient by permitting a case of negligence to be taken to a jury. It is now standard practice for nursing homes to get patients to sign away their right to go to court if negligence occurs; it is called an arbitration clause. In Cantie v. Hillside the courts have again said if the nursing home fails to assert the arbitration clause early, it waives its right to raise it later. Know what you are signing. Hire a probate professional.
The Fourth district court of appeals for Ohio just decided a case on February 27th that held a property owner liable in money damages to his neighbor for surface water trespass caused by negligent logging. Gas well fracking and lumbering activities have resulted in clear cutting of trees that has caused flooding for adjoining properties. If you are careless it can cost you money. Probate cases often involve real estate that has been damaged near to the point in time of the death of the owner. A good probate attorney can help recover damages for the estate beneficiaries. Probate administration can involve much more than having the will admitted and money distributed. Whatever problems a deceased person had with regard to his/her property do not always cease with death. Experience in real estate law is always a must.
The Ohio Supreme Court recently decided a case that clarifies the law regarding will contest and probate litigation cases.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
COMMONWEALTH vs. ROBERT F. BUDREAU.
COMPLAINT received and sworn to in the Central District Court of Worcester on July 31, 1975.
On appeal, trial by a jury of six having been waived, the case was heard by George, J.
Thomas F. Sullivan, Jr., for the defendant.
Joseph F. Brennan, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
QUIRICO, J. The defendant was tried and found guilty by a judge of a District Court on a complaint charging he had purchased, received, and aided in the concealment of certain goods and chattels knowing them to have been stolen. He claimed an appeal to a jury of six in the same District Court. When the case was reached for trial on appeal, he waived his claim to a jury, but not his appeal, and was tried before another judge in the same District Court where he had been convicted originally, and was again convicted. This appeal, claim of jury, waiver of jury and second trial were all part of a double trial, single tier procedure seemingly sanctioned by G. L. c. 218, Section 27A, inserted by St. 1972, c. 620, Section 1, and theretofore by a series of predecessor special statutes. For a comment on this double trial procedure, see Commonwealth v. Henry's Drywall Co., 362 Mass. 552, 553 n.2 (1972).
The case is now before us on the defendant's bill of exceptions alleging error in two rulings made during the second trial, one ruling relating to the admission of evidence and the other being the judge's denial of the defendant's motion, filed at the close of all the evidence, "for a directed finding of not guilty." We hold that there was error and reverse.
v. Corcoran, 332 Mass. 615 (1955). Commonwealth v. Young, 326 Mass. 597, 598 (1950). Commonwealth v. Capitol Theatre, Inc., 325 Mass. 146, 147-148 (1949). Commonwealth v. Slome, 321 Mass. 713, 714 (1947). Commonwealth v. Goldberg, 316 Mass. 563, 564 (1944). Commonwealth v. Albert, 307 Mass. 239, 244 (1940).
Treating the defendant's motion "for a directed finding of not guilty" as a request for a ruling that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant a conviction, we must consider and determine whether the evidence stated in the bill of exceptions, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth is sufficient to permit the judge to infer the existence of the essential elements of the crime charged in the complaint. See Commonwealth v. Sandler, 368 Mass. 729, 740 (1975).
bore identifying numbers or marks which he had placed on them as a cost code. He identified the boxes, but he testified that he could not state for certain if the articles in the boxes were in fact any of the items stolen from his store. He could say only that they were of the same type and model numbers and that the boxes in which they were contained at the police station had on them his own identification numbers or marks. The officer did not know where the boxes which were at the police station had come from.
We hold that the evidence thus summarized in the bill of exceptions was not sufficient to permit an inference that the three articles seized by the police under the search warrant had been stolen. The defendant was therefore entitled to a ruling that the evidence was insufficient to warrant his conviction of the crime charged, and his exception to the denial thereof is sustained.
By reason of our conclusion, we do not reach the further question whether it was error for the judge to permit testimony from the police officer that when he went to serve the search warrant the defendant's father pointed out a room in the house as the one occupied by the defendant.


text:
Clathrin is critical for internalization of many viruses, yet no one would consider it a receptor; similarly, although encephalomyocarditis virus binds to glycophorin A on nonpermissive red blood cells, glycophorin is not expressed on most permissive cell lines and is unlikely to be the real receptor. The author suggests that a putative receptor molecule should fulfill two general criteria. First, the molecule must interact with virus at the cell surface. Second, interaction with the molecule must promote infection. The typical picornavirus capsid is an icosahedral structure constructed of 12 pentamers, with each pentamer composed of five copies of each of the four viral structural proteins, VP1 to -4. The first and simplest function of a receptor is to permit virus attachment and to concentrate the virus at the cell surface so that subsequent events in infection can occur. Unlike most enteroviruses, which have evolved to resist gastric acidity as they move through the enteric tract, foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) and some rhinoviruses are destabilized by acid. Virus receptors may also transmit intracellular signals that are important for infection. The same surface loop that displays the RGD motif is also a major site recognized by neutralizing antibodies. Coxsackievirus and adenovirus receptor (CAR) functions in cell-cell adhesion, mediating both homotypic and heterotypic interactions. The murine CAR homolog is a functional coxsackie B viruses (CVB) receptor and is most likely responsible for the susceptibility of mice to CVB infection.
Diverse structures of picornavirus receptor molecules. Important structural features of each receptor are indicated, with asterisks marking sites of virus attachment. PVR, ICAM-1, and CAR are members of the Ig superfamily. The hepatitis A virus receptor TIM-1 is composed of a single Ig domain atop a series of mucin-like repeats. DAF is linked to the membrane by a glycolipid (gpi) anchor; enterovirus 70 binds specifically to the N-terminal SCR domain, but other picornaviruses interact primarily with other SCRs. VLA-2 and αvβ3 are integrins, which are heterodimers composed of α and β subunits: VLA-2 α includes an extra domain, the I-domain, which serves as the attachment site for EV1; αvβ3 recognizes viral RGD peptides, which are bound at the interface between the two subunits. Members of the LDLR family are characterized by cysteine-rich N-terminal repeats, which are recognized by minor group HRVs. PSGL-1 is a disulfide-linked heterodimer composed largely of mucin-like repeats; the projecting N-terminal peptide, which is characterized by sulfated tyrosine residues, is the attachment site for enterovirus 71. SCARB2 is a type III glycoprotein with two transmembrane segments; the structure of the virus-binding extracellular domain has not been determined.
1. Abraham, G., and, R. J. Colonno. 1984. Many rhinovirus serotypes share the same cellular receptor. J. Virol. 51: 340– 345.
2. Acharya, R.,, E. Fry,, D. Stuart,, G. Fox,, D. Rowlands, and, F. Brown. 1989. The three-dimensional structure of foot-and-mouth disease virus at 2.9 Å resolution. Nature 337: 709– 716.
3. Alexander, D. A., and, K. Dimock. 2002. Sialic acid functions in enterovirus 70 binding and infection. J. Virol. 76: 11265– 11272.
4. Alexandersen, S.,, Z. Zhang,, A. I. Donaldson, and, A. J. Garland. 2003. The pathogenesis and diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease. J. Comp. Pathol. 129: 1– 36.
5. Allaway, G. P., and, A. T. Burness. 1986. Site of attachment of encephalomyocarditis virus on human erythrocytes. J. Virol. 59: 768– 770.
6. Antar, A. A.,, J. L. Konopka,, J. A. Campbell,, R. A. Henry,, A. L. Perdigoto,, B. D. Carter,, A. Pozzi,, T. W. Abel, and, T. S. Dermody. 2009. Junctional adhesion molecule-A is required for hematogenous dissemination of reovirus. Cell Host Microbe 5: 59– 71.
7. Asher, D. R.,, A. M. Cerny,, S. R. Weiler,, J. W. Horner,, M. L. Keeler,, M. A. Neptune,, S. N. Jones,, R. T. Bronson,, R. A. Depinho, and, R. W. Finberg. 2005. Coxsackievirus and adenovirus receptor is essential for cardiomyocyte development. Genesis 42: 77– 85.
8. Baranowski, E.,, C. M. Ruiz-Jarabo,, N. Sevilla,, D. Andreu,, E. Beck, and, E. Domingo. 2000. Cell recognition by foot-and-mouth disease virus that lacks the RGD integrin-binding motif: flexibility in aphthovirus receptor usage. J. Virol. 74: 1641– 1647.
9. Baxt, B., and, H. Bachrach. 1980. Early interactions of foot-and-mouth disease virus with cultured cells. Virology 104: 42– 55.
10. Beck, E.,, G. Feil, and, K. Strohmaier. 1983. The molecular basis of the antigenic variation of foot-and-mouth disease virus. EMBO J. 2: 555– 559.
11. Belnap, D. M.,, B. M. McDermott, Jr.,, D. J. Filman,, N. Cheng,, B. L. Trus,, H. J. Zuccola,, V. R. Racaniello,, J. M. Hogle, and, A. C. Steven. 2000. Three-dimensional structure of poliovirus receptor bound to poliovirus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97: 73– 78.
12. Bergelson, J. M.,, M. Chan,, K. Solomon,, N. F. St. John,, H. Lin, and, R. W. Finberg. 1994. Decay-accelerating factor, a glycosylphosphatidylinositol-anchored complement regulatory protein, is a receptor for several echoviruses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91: 6245– 6248.
13. Bergelson, J. M.,, J. A. Cunningham,, G. Droguett,, E. A. Kurt-Jones,, A. Krithivas,, J. S. Hong,, M. S. Horwitz,, R. L. Crowell, and, R. W. Finberg. 1997. Isolation of a common receptor for coxsackie B viruses and adenoviruses 2 and 5. Science 275: 1320– 1323.
14. Bergelson, J. M.,, A. Krithivas,, L. Celi,, G. Droguett,, M. S. Horwitz,, T. Wickham,, R. L. Crowell, and, R. W. Finberg. 1998. The murine CAR homologue (mCAR) is a receptor for coxsackie B viruses and adenoviruses. J. Virol. 72: 415– 419.
15. Bergelson, J. M.,, J. G. Mohanty,, R. L. Crowell,, N. F. St. John,, D. M. Lublin, and, R. W. Finberg. 1995. Coxsackievirus B3 adapted to growth in RD cells binds to decay-accelerating factor (CD55). J. Virol. 69: 1903– 1906.
16. Bergelson, J. M.,, M. P. Shepley,, B. M. C. Chan,, M. E. Hemler, and, R. W. Finberg. 1992. Identification of the integrin VLA-2 as a receptor for echovirus 1. Science 255: 1718– 1720.
17. Bergelson, J. M.,, N. St. John,, S. Kawaguchi,, M. Chan,, H. Stubdal,, J. Modlin, and, R. W. Finberg. 1993. Infection by echoviruses 1 and 8 depends on the α2 subunit of human VLA-2. J. Virol. 67: 6847– 6852.
18. Berinstein, A.,, M. Roivainen,, T. Hovi,, P. W. Mason, and, B. Baxt. 1995. Antibodies to the vitronectin receptor (integrin alpha V beta 3) inhibit binding and infection of foot-and-mouth disease virus to cultured cells. J. Virol. 69: 2664– 2666.
19. Berryman, S.,, S. Clark,, P. Monaghan, and, T. Jackson. 2005. Early events in integrin αvβ6-mediated cell entry of foot-and-mouth disease virus. J. Virol. 79: 8519– 8534.
20. Bottino, C.,, R. Castriconi,, D. Pende,, P. Rivera,, M. Nanni,, B. Carnemolla,, C. Cantoni,, J. Grassi,, S. Marcenaro,, N. Reymond,, M. Vitale,, L. Moretta,, M. Lopez, and, A. Moretta. 2003. Identification of PVR (CD155) and nectin-2 (CD112) as cell surface ligands for the human DNAM-1 (CD226) activating molecule. J. Exp. Med. 198: 557– 567.
21. Brabec, M.,, G. Baravalle,, D. Blaas, and, R. Fuchs. 2003. Conformational changes, plasma membrane penetration, and infection by human rhinovirus type 2: role of receptors and low pH. J. Virol. 77: 5370– 5377.
22. Brown, F., and, B. Cartwright. 1961. Dissociation of foot-and-mouth disease virus into its nucleic acid and protein components. Nature 192: 1163– 1164.
23. Burman, A.,, S. Clark,, N. G. Abrescia,, E. E. Fry,, D. I. Stuart, and, T. Jackson. 2006. Specificity of the VP1 GH loop of foot-and-mouth disease virus for αv integrins. J. Virol. 80: 9798– 9810.
24. Calvo, D.,, J. Dopazo, and, M. A. Vega. 1995. The CD36, CLA-1 (CD36L1), and LIMPII (CD36L2) gene family: cellular distribution, chromosomal location, and genetic evolution. Genomics 25: 100– 106.
25. Carrillo, C.,, E. R. Tulman,, G. Delhon,, Z. Lu,, A. Carreno,, A. Vagnozzi,, G. F. Kutish, and, D. L. Rock. 2005. Comparative genomics of foot-and-mouth disease virus. J. Virol. 79: 6487– 6504.
26. Carson, S. D.,, N. N. Chapman, and, S. M. Tracy. 1997. Purification of the putative coxsackievirus B receptor from HeLa cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 233: 325– 328.
27. Chapman, M. S.,, I. Minor,, M. G. Rossmann,, G. D. Diana, and, K. Andries. 1991. Human rhinovirus 14 complexed with antiviral compound R 61837. J. Mol. Biol. 217: 455– 463.
28. Chen, J. W.,, B. Zhou,, Q. C. Yu,, S. J. Shin,, K. Jiao,, M. D. Schneider,, H. S. Baldwin, and, J. M. Bergelson. 2006. Cardiomyocyte-specific deletion of the coxsackievirus and adenovirus receptor results in hyperplasia of the embryonic left ventricle and abnormalities of sinuatrial valves. Circ. Res. 98: 923– 930.
29. Cohen, C. J.,, J. T.-C. Shieh,, R. J. Pickles,, T. Okegawa,, J.-T. Hsieh, and, J. M. Bergelson. 2001. The coxsackievirus and adenovirus receptor is a transmembrane component of the tight junction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 15191– 15196.
30. Colonno, R. J.,, P. L. Callahan, and, W. J. Long. 1986. Isolation of a monoclonal antibody that blocks attachment of the major group of human rhinoviruses. J. Virol. 57: 7– 12.
31. Coyne, C. B., and, J. M. Bergelson. 2006. Virus-induced Abl and Fyn kinase signals permit coxsackievirus entry through epithelial tight junctions. Cell 124: 119– 131.
32. Coyne, C. B.,, K. S. Kim, and, J. M. Bergelson. 2007. Poliovirus entry into human brain microvascular cells requires receptor-induced activation of SHP-2. EMBO J. 26: 4016– 4028.
33. Crowell, R. L.,, A. K. Field,, W. A. Schlief,, W. L. Long,, R. J. Colonno,, J. E. Mapoles, and, E. A. Emini. 1986. Monoclonal antibody that inhibits infection of HeLa and rhabdomyosarcoma cells by selected enteroviruses through receptor blockade. J. Virol. 57: 438– 445.
34. Crowell, R. L., and, M. A. Landau. 1983. Receptors in the initiation of picornavirus infections, p. 1–42. In H. Fraenkel-Conrat and R. R. Wagner (ed.), Comprehensive Virology, vol. 18. Plenum Publishing Corp., New York, NY.
35. Crowell, R. L., and, L. Philipson. 1971. Specific alterations of coxsackievirus B3 eluted from HeLa cells. J. Virol. 8: 509– 515.
36. De Sena, J., and, B. Mandel. 1977. Studies on the in vitro un-coating of poliovirus. II. Characteristics of the membrane-modified particle. Virology 78: 554– 566.
37. Dorner, A. A.,, F. Wegmann,, S. Butz,, K. Wolburg-Buchholz,, H. Wolburg,, A. Mack,, I. Nasdala,, B. August,, J. Westermann,, F. G. Rathjen, and, D. Vestweber. 2005. Coxsackievirus-adenovirus receptor (CAR) is essential for early embryonic cardiac development. J. Cell Sci. 118: 3509– 3521.
38. Duque, H., and, B. Baxt. 2003. Foot-and-mouth disease virus receptors: comparison of bovine α v integrin utilization by type A and O viruses. J. Virol. 77: 2500– 2511.
39. Dustin, M. L., and, T. A. Springer. 1991. Role of lymphocyte adhesion receptors in transient interactions and cell locomotion. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 9: 27– 66.
40. Fox, G.,, N. R. Parry,, P. V. Barnett,, B. McGin,, D. J. Rowlands, and, F. Brown. 1989. The cell attachment site on foot-and-mouth disease virus includes the amino acid sequence RGD (arginine-glycine-aspartic acid). J. Gen. Virol. 70: 625– 637.
41. Fox, M. P.,, M. J. Otto, and, M. A. McKinlay. 1986. Prevention of rhinovirus and poliovirus uncoating by WIN 51711, a new antiviral drug. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 30: 110– 116.
42. Freistadt, M. S.,, G. Kaplan, and, V. R. Racaniello. 1990. Heterogeneous expression of poliovirus receptor-related proteins in human cells and tissues. Mol. Cell. Biol. 10: 5700– 5706.
43. Fry, E. E.,, S. M. Lea,, T. Jackson,, J. W. Newman,, F. M. Ellard,, W. E. Blakemore,, R. Abu-Ghazaleh,, A. Samuel,, A. M. King, and, D. I. Stuart. 1999. The structure and function of a foot-and-mouth disease virus-oligosaccharide receptor complex. EMBO J. 18: 543– 554.
44. Fujito, T.,, W. Ikeda,, S. Kakunaga,, Y. Minami,, M. Kajita,, Y. Sakamoto,, M. Monden, and, Y. Takai. 2005. Inhibition of cell movement and proliferation by cell-cell contact-induced interaction of Necl-5 with nectin-3. J. Cell Biol. 171: 165– 173.
45. Goodfellow, I. G.,, A. B. Sioofy,, R. M. Powell, and, D. J. Evans. 2001. Echoviruses bind heparan sulfate at the cell surface. J. Virol. 75: 4918– 4921.
46. Grant, R. A.,, C. N. Hiremath,, D. J. Filman,, R. Syed,, K. Andries, and, J. M. Hogle. 1994. Structures of poliovirus complexes with anti-viral drugs: implications for viral stability and drug design. Curr. Biol. 4: 784– 797.
47. Greve, J. M.,, G. Davis,, A. M. Meyer,, C. P. Forte,, S. C. Yost,, C. W. Marlor,, M. E. Kamarck, and, A. McClelland. 1989. The major human rhinovirus receptor is ICAM-1. Cell 56: 839– 847.
48. Hadfield, A. T.,, W. Lee,, R. Zhao,, M. A. Oliveira,, I. Minor,, R. R. Rueckert, and, M. G. Rossmann. 1997. The refined structure of human rhinovirus 16 at 2.15 Å resolution: implications for the viral life cycle. Structure 5: 427– 441.
49. Hafenstein, S.,, V. D. Bowman,, P. R. Chipman,, C. M. Bator Kelly,, F. Lin,, M. E. Medof, and, M. G. Rossmann. 2007. Interaction of decay-accelerating factor with coxsackievirus B3. J. Virol. 81: 12927– 12935.
50. He, Y.,, V. D. Bowman,, S. Mueller,, C. M. Bator,, J. Bella,, X. Peng,, T. S. Baker,, E. Wimmer,, R. J. Kuhn, and, M. G. Rossmann. 2000. Interaction of the poliovirus receptor with polio-virus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97: 79– 84.
51. He, Y.,, P. R. Chipman,, J. Howitt,, C. M. Bator,, M. A. Whitt,, T. S. Baker,, R. J. Kuhn,, C. W. Anderson,, P. Freimuth, and, M. G. Rossmann. 2001. Interaction of coxsackievirus B3 with the full length coxsackievirus-adenovirus receptor. Nat. Struct. Biol. 8: 874– 878.
52. He, Y.,, F. Lin,, P. R. Chipman,, C. M. Bator,, T. S. Baker,, M. Shoham,, R. J. Kuhn,, M. E. Medof, and, M. G. Rossmann. 2002. Structure of decay-accelerating factor bound to echovirus 7: a virus-receptor complex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 10325– 10329.
53. Heikkila, O.,, P. Susi,, G. Stanway, and, T. Hyypia. 2009. Integrin αVβ6 is a high-affinity receptor for coxsackievirus A9. J. Gen. Virol. 90: 197– 204.
54. Hewat, E. A.,, E. Neumann,, J. F. Conway,, R. Moser,, B. Ronacher,, T. C. Marlovits, and, D. Blaas. 2000. The cellular receptor to human rhinovirus 2 binds around the 5-fold axis and not in the canyon: a structural view. EMBO J. 19: 6317– 6325.
55. Hofer, F.,, M. Gruenberger,, H. Kowalski,, H. Machat,, M. Huettinger,, E. Kuechler, and, D. Blaas. 1994. Members of the low density lipoprotein receptor family mediate cell entry of a minor-group common cold virus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91: 1839– 1842.
56. Hogle, J. M.,, M. Chow, and, D. J. Filman. 1985. Three-dimensional structure of poliovirus at 2.9 Å resolution. Science 229: 1358– 1365.
57. Holland, J. J., and, B. H. Hoyer. 1962. Early stages of entero-virus infection. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 27: 101– 112.
58. Honda, T.,, H. Saitoh,, M. Masuko,, T. Katagiri-Abe,, K. Tominaga,, I. Kozakai,, K. Kobayashi,, T. Kominishi,, Y. G. Watanabe,, S. Odani, and, R. Kuwano. 2000. The coxsackievirus adenovirus receptor as a cell adhesion molecule in the developing mouse brain. Mol. Brain Res. 77: 19– 28.
59. Hoover-Litty, H., and, J. M. Greve. 1993. Formation of rhino-virus-soluble ICAM-1 complexes and conformational changes in the virion. J. Virol. 67: 390– 397.
60. Hsu, K.-H. L.,, K. Lonberg-Holm,, B. Alstein, and, R. L. Crowell. 1988. A monoclonal antibody specific for the cellular receptor for the group B coxsackieviruses. J. Virol. 62: 1647– 1652.
61. Huang, C. C.,, C. C. Liu,, Y. C. Chang,, C. Y. Chen,, S. T. Wang, and, T. F. Yeh. 1999. Neurologic complications in children with enterovirus 71 infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 341: 936– 942.
62. Huber, S. A. 1994. VCAM-1 is a receptor for encephalomyocarditis virus on murine vascular endothelial cells. J. Virol. 68: 3453– 3458.
63. Hughes, S. A.,, H. M. Thaker, and, V. R. Racaniello. 2003. Transgenic mouse model for echovirus myocarditis and paralysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100: 15906– 15911.
64. Ida-Hosonuma, M.,, T. Iwasaki,, T. Yoshikawa,, N. Nagata,, Y. Sato,, T. Sata,, M. Yoneyama,, T. Fujita,, C. Taya,, H. Yonekawa, and, S. Koike. 2005. The alpha/beta interferon response controls tissue tropism and pathogenicity of poliovirus. J. Virol. 79: 4460– 4469.
65. Jackson, T.,, W. Blakemore,, J. W. Newman,, N. J. Knowles,, A. P. Mould,, M. J. Humphries, and, A. M. King. 2000. Foot-and-mouth disease virus is a ligand for the high-affinity binding conformation of integrin α5β1: influence of the leucine residue within the RGDL motif on selectivity of integrin binding. J. Gen. Virol. 81: 1383– 1391.
66. Jackson, T.,, S. Clark,, S. Berryman,, A. Burman,, S. Cambier,, D. Mu,, S. Nishimura, and, A. M. King. 2004. Integrin αvβ8 functions as a receptor for foot-and-mouth disease virus: role of the β-chain cytodomain in integrin-mediated infection. J. Virol. 78: 4533– 4540.
67. Jackson, T.,, F. M. Ellard,, R. A. Ghazaleh,, S. M. Brookes,, W. E. Blakemore,, A. H. Corteyn,, D. I. Stuart,, J. W. Newman, and, A. M. King. 1996. Efficient infection of cells in culture by type O foot-and-mouth disease virus requires binding to cell surface heparan sulfate. J. Virol. 70: 5282– 5287.
68. Jackson, T.,, A. P. Mould,, D. Sheppard, and, A. M. King. 2002. Integrin αvβ1 is a receptor for foot-and-mouth disease virus. J. Virol. 76: 935– 941.
69. Jackson, T.,, D. Sheppard,, M. Denyer,, W. Blakemore, and, A. M. King. 2000. The epithelial integrin αvβ6 is a receptor for foot-and-mouth disease virus. J. Virol. 74: 4949– 4956.
70. Jin, Y. M.,, I. U. Pardoe,, A. T. Burness, and, T. I. Michalak. 1994. Identification and characterization of the cell surface 70-kilodalton sialoglycoprotein(s) as a candidate receptor for encephalomyocarditis virus on human nucleated cells. J. Virol. 68: 7308– 7319.
71. Johns, H. L.,, S. Berryman,, P. Monaghan,, G. J. Belsham, and, T. Jackson. 2009. A dominant-negative mutant of rab5 inhibits infection of cells by foot-and-mouth disease virus: implications for virus entry. J. Virol. 83: 6247– 6256.
72. Kallewaard, N. L.,, L. Zhang,, J. W. Chen,, M. Guttenberg,, M. D. Sanchez, and, J. M. Bergelson. 2009. Tissue-specific deletion of the coxsackievirus and adenovirus receptor protects mice from virus-induced pancreatitis and myocarditis. Cell Host Microbe 6: 91– 98.
73. Kaplan, G.,, A. Totsuka,, P. Thompson,, T. Akatsuka,, Y. Moritsugu, and, S. M. Feinstone. 1996. Identification of a surface glycoprotein on African green monkey kidney cells as a receptor for hepatitis A virus. EMBO J. 15: 4282– 4296.
74. Karnauchow, T. M.,, D. L. Tolson,, B. A. Harrison,, E. Altman,, D. M. Lublin, and, K. Dimock. 1996. The HeLa cell receptor for enterovirus 70 is decay-accelerating factor (CD55). J. Virol. 70: 5143– 5152.
75. Khan, A. G.,, J. Pichler,, A. Rosemann, and, D. Blaas. 2007. Human rhinovirus type 54 infection via heparan sulfate is less efficient and strictly dependent on low endosomal pH. J. Virol. 81: 4625– 4632.
76. King, S. L.,, J. A. Cunningham,, R. W. Finberg, and, J. M. Bergelson. 1995. Echovirus 1 interaction with the isolated VLA-2 I domain. J. Virol. 69: 3237– 3239.
77. Koike, S.,, H. Horie,, I. Ise,, A. Okitsu,, M. Yoshida,, N. Iizuka,, K. Takeuchi,, T. Takegami, and, A. Nomoto. 1990. The poliovirus receptor protein is produced both as membrane-bound and secreted forms. EMBO J. 9: 3217– 3224.
78. Kolatkar, P. R.,, J. Bella,, N. H. Olson,, C. M. Bator,, T. S. Baker, and, M. G. Rossmann. 1999. Structural studies of two rhino-virus serotypes complexed with fragments of their cellular receptor. EMBO J. 18: 6249– 6259.
79. Konecsni, T.,, U. Berka,, A. Pickl-Herk,, G. Bilek,, A. G. Khan,, L. Gajdzig,, R. Fuchs, and, D. Blaas. 2009. Low pH-triggered beta-propeller switch of the low-density lipoprotein receptor assists rhinovirus infection. J. Virol. 83: 10922– 10930.
80. Lange, R.,, X. Peng,, E. Wimmer,, M. Lipp, and, G. Bernhardt. 2001. The poliovirus receptor CD155 mediates cell-to-matrix contacts by specifically binding to vitronectin. Virology 285: 218– 227.
81. Lim, B. K.,, D. Xiong,, A. Dorner,, T. J. Youn,, A. Yung,, T. I. Liu,, Y. Gu,, N. D. Dalton,, A. T. Wright,, S. M. Evans,, J. Chen,, K. L. Peterson,, A. D. McCulloch,, T. Yajima, and, K. U. Knowlton. 2008. Coxsackievirus and adenovirus receptor (CAR) mediates atrioventricular-node function and connexin 45 localization in the murine heart. J. Clin. Invest. 118: 2758– 2770.
82. Lisewski, U.,, Y. Shi,, U. Wrackmeyer,, R. Fischer,, C. Chen,, A. Schirdewan,, R. Juttner,, F. Rathjen,, W. Poller,, M. H. Radke, and, M. Gotthardt. 2008. The tight junction protein CAR regulates cardiac conduction and cell-cell communication. J. Exp. Med. 205: 2369– 2379.
83. Lonberg-Holm, K., and, B. D. Korant. 1972. Early interaction of rhinoviruses with host cells. J. Virol. 9: 29– 40.
84. Lublin, D. M., and, J. P. Atkinson. 1989. Decay-accelerating factor: biochemistry, molecular biology, and function. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 7: 35– 57.
85. Maier, M. K.,, S. Seth,, N. Czeloth,, Q. Qiu,, I. Ravens,, E. Kremmer,, M. Ebel,, W. Muller,, O. Pabst,, R. Forster, and, G. Bernhardt. 2007. The adhesion receptor CD155 determines the magnitude of humoral immune responses against orally ingested antigens. Eur. J. Immunol. 37: 2214– 2225.
86. Marchant, D.,, A. Sall,, X. Si,, T. Abraham,, W. Wu,, Z. Luo,, T. Petersen,, R. G. Hegele, and, B. M. McManus. 2009. ERK MAP kinase-activated Arf6 trafficking directs coxsackievirus type B3 into an unproductive compartment during virus host-cell entry. J. Gen. Virol. 90: 854– 862.
87. Marjomaki, V.,, V. Pietiainen,, H. Matilainen,, P. Upla,, J. Ivaska,, L. Nissinen,, H. Reunanen,, P. Huttunen,, T. Hyypia, and, J. Heino. 2002. Internalization of echovirus 1 in caveolae. J. Virol. 76: 1856– 1865.
88. Marlovits, T. C.,, T. Zechmeister,, M. Gruenberger,, B. Ronacher,, H. Schwihla, and, D. Blaas. 1998. Recombinant soluble low density lipoprotein receptor fragment inhibits minor group rhinovirus infection in vitro. FASEB J. 12: 695– 703.
89. Martino, T. A.,, M. Petric,, H. Weingartl,, J. M. Bergelson,, M. A. Opavsky,, C. D. Richardson,, J. F. Modlin,, R. W. Finberg,, K. C. Kain,, N. Willis,, C. J. Gauntt, and, P. P. Liu. 2000. The coxsackie-adenovirus receptor (CAR) is used by reference strains and clinical isolates representing all six serotypes of coxsackievirus group B, and by swine vesicular disease virus. Virology 271: 99– 108.
90. Mason, P.,, B. Baxt,, F. Brown,, J. Harber,, A. Murdin, and, E. Wimmer. 1993. Antibody-complexed foot-and-mouth disease virus, but not poliovirus, can infect normally insusceptible cells via the Fc receptor. Virology 192: 568– 577.
91. Mason, P. W.,, E. Rieder, and, B. Baxt. 1994. RGD sequence of foot-and-mouth disease virus is essential for infecting cells via the natural receptor but can be bypassed by an antibody-dependent enhancement pathway. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91: 1932– 1936.
92. McEver, R. P., and, R. D. Cummings. 1997. Perspectives series: cell adhesion in vascular biology. Role of PSGL-1 binding to selectins in leukocyte recruitment. J. Clin. Invest. 100: 485– 491.
93. McKenna, T. S.,, J. Lubroth,, E. Rieder,, B. Baxt, and, P. W. Mason. 1995. Receptor binding site-deleted foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) virus protects cattle from FMD. J. Virol. 69: 5787– 5790.
94. Mendelsohn, C. L.,, E. Wimmer, and, V. R. Racaniello. 1989. Cellular receptor for poliovirus: molecular cloning, nucleotide sequence, and expression of a new member of the immunoglobulin superfamily. Cell 56: 855– 865.
95. Milstone, A.,, J. Petrella,, M. Sanchez,, M. Mahmud,, J. Whit-beck, and, J. Bergelson. 2005. Interaction with coxsackievirus and adenovirus receptor (CAR), but not with decay accelerating factor (DAF), induces A particle formation in a DAF-binding coxsackievirus B3 isolate. J. Virol. 79: 655– 660.
96. Monaghan, P.,, S. Gold,, J. Simpson,, Z. Zhang,, P. H. Weinreb,, S. M. Violette,, S. Alexandersen, and, T. Jackson. 2005. The α vβ 6 integrin receptor for foot-and-mouth disease virus is expressed constitutively on the epithelial cells targeted in cattle. J. Gen. Virol. 86: 2769– 2780.
97. Morrison, M. E.,, Y.-J. He,, M. W. Wien,, J. M. Hogle, and, V. R. Racaniello. 1994. Homolog-scanning mutagenesis reveals poliovirus receptor residues important for virus binding and replication. J. Virol. 68: 2578– 2588.
98. Neff, S.,, D. Sa-Carvalho,, E. Rieder,, P. W. Mason,, S. D. Blystone,, E. J. Brown, and, B. Baxt. 1998. Foot-and-mouth disease virus virulent for cattle utilizes the integrin α vβ 3 as its receptor. J. Virol. 72: 3587– 3594.
99. Newcombe, N. G.,, P. Andersson,, E. S. Johansson,, G. G. Au,, A. M. Lindberg,, R. D. Barry, and, D. R. Shafren. 2003. Cellular receptor interactions of C-cluster human group A coxsackieviruses. J. Gen. Virol. 84: 3041– 3050.
100. Newcombe, N. G.,, E. S. Johansson,, G. Au,, A. M. Lindberg,, R. D. Barry, and, D. R. Shafren. 2004. Enterovirus capsid interactions with decay-accelerating factor mediate lytic cell infection. J. Virol. 78: 1431– 1439.
101. Nicodemou, A.,, M. Petsch,, T. Konecsni,, L. Kremser,, E. Kenndler,, J. M. Casasnovas, and, D. Blaas. 2005. Rhinovirus-stabilizing activity of artificial VLDL-receptor variants defines a new mechanism for virus neutralization by soluble receptors. FEBS Lett. 579: 5507– 5511.
102. Nilsson, E. C.,, F. Jamshidi,, S. M. Johansson,, M. S. Oberste, and, N. Arnberg. 2008. Sialic acid is a cellular receptor for coxsackievirus A24 variant, an emerging virus with pandemic potential. J. Virol. 82: 3061– 3068.
103. Nishimura, Y.,, M. Shimojima,, Y. Tano,, T. Miyamura,, T. Wakita, and, H. Shizumi. 2009. Human P-selectin glycoprotein ligand-1 is a functional receptor for enterovirus 71. Nat. Med. 15: 794– 797.
104. Nobis, P.,, R. Zibirre,, G. Meyer,, J. Kuhne,, G. Warnecke, and, G. Koch. 1985. Production of a monoclonal antibody against an epitope on HeLa cells that is the functional poliovirus binding site. J. Gen. Virol. 66: 2563– 2569.
105. Nurani, G.,, B. Lindqvist, and, J. M. Casasnovas. 2003. Receptor priming of major group human rhinoviruses for un-coating and entry at mild low-pH environments. J. Virol. 77: 11985– 11991.
106. O’Donnell, V.,, M. Larocco, and, B. Baxt. 2008. Heparan sulfate-binding foot-and-mouth disease virus enters cells via caveola-mediated endocytosis. J. Virol. 82: 9075– 9085.
107. O’Donnell, V.,, M. LaRocco,, H. Duque, and, B. Baxt. 2005. Analysis of foot-and-mouth disease virus internalization events in cultured cells. J. Virol. 79: 8506– 8518.
108. Olson, N. H.,, P. R. Kolatkar,, M. A. Oliveria,, R. H. Cheng,, J. M. Greve,, A. McClelland,, T. S. Baker, and, M. G. Rossmann. 1993. Structure of a human rhinovirus complexed with its receptor molecule. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90: 507– 511.
109. Pettigrew, D. M.,, D. T. Williams,, D. Kerrigan,, D. J. Evans,, S. M. Lea, and, D. Bhella. 2006. Structural and functional insights into the interaction of echoviruses and decay-accelerating factor. J. Biol. Chem. 281: 5169– 5177.
110. Pietiainen, V.,, V. Marjomaki,, P. Upla,, L. Pelkmans,, A. Helenius, and, T. Hyypia. 2004. Echovirus 1 endocytosis into caveosomes requires lipid rafts, dynamin II, and signaling events. Mol. Biol. Cell 15: 4911– 4925.
111. Powell, R. M.,, V. Schmitt,, T. Ward,, I. Goodfellow,, D. J. Evans, and, J. W. Almond. 1998. Characterization of echoviruses that bind decay accelerating factor (CD55): evidence that some haemagglutinating strains use more than one cellular receptor. J. Gen. Virol. 79: 1707– 1713.
112. Powell, R. M.,, T. Ward,, D. J. Evans, and, J. W. Almond. 1997. Interaction between echovirus 7 and its receptor, decay-accelerating factor (CD55): evidence for a secondary cellular factor in A-particle formation. J. Virol. 71: 9306– 9312.
113. Powell, R. M.,, T. Ward,, I. Goodfellow,, J. W. Almond, and, D. J. Evans. 1999. Mapping the binding domains on decay accelerating factor (DAF) for haemagglutinating enteroviruses: implications for the evolution of a DAF-binding phenotype. J. Gen. Virol. 80: 3145– 3152.
114. Prchla, E.,, E. Kuechler,, D. Blaas, and, R. Fuchs. 1994. Uncoating of human rhinovirus serotype 2 from late endosomes. J. Virol. 68: 3713– 3723.
115. Ren, R.,, F. Constantini,, E. Gorgacz,, J. J. Lee, and, V. R. Racaniello. 1990. Transgenic mice expressing a human poliovirus receptor: a new model for poliomyelitis. Cell 63: 353– 362.
116. Ren, R., and, V. Racaniello. 1992. Human poliovirus receptor gene expression and poliovirus tissue tropism in transgenic mice. J. Virol. 66: 296– 304.
117. Rieder, E.,, T. Henry,, H. Duque, and, B. Baxt. 2005. Analysis of a foot-and-mouth disease virus type A24 isolate containing an SGD receptor recognition site in vitro and its pathogenesis in cattle. J. Virol. 79: 12989– 12998.
118. Rogers, J. M.,, G. D. Diana, and, M. A. McKinlay. 1999. Pleconaril. A broad spectrum antipicornaviral agent. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 458: 69– 76.
119. Roivainen, M.,, L. Piirainen,, T. Hovi,, I. Virtanen,, T. Riikinen,, J. Heino, and, T. Hyypia. 1994. Entry of coxsackievirus A9 into host cells: specific interactions with alpha v beta 3 integrin, the vitronectin receptor. Virology 203: 357– 365.
120. Rosenwirth, B., and, H. J. Eggers. 1979. Early processes of echovirus 12 infection: elution, penetration, and uncoating under the influence of rhodanine. Virology 97: 241– 255.
121. Rossmann, M., and, A. Palmenberg. 1988. Conservation of the putative receptor attachment site in picornaviruses. Virology 164: 373– 382.
122. Rossmann, M. G.,, E. Arnold,, J. W. Erickson,, E. A. Frankenberger,, J. P. Griffith,, H.-J. Hecht,, J. E. Johnson,, G. Kamer,, M. Luo,, A. G. Moser,, R. R. Rueckert,, B. Sherry, and, G. Vriend. 1985. Structure of a human common cold virus and functional relationship to other picornaviruses. Nature 317: 145– 153.
123. Ruoslahti, E., and, M. D. Pierschbacher. 1987. New perspectives in cell adhesion. RGD and integrins. Science 238: 491– 497.
124. Sa-Carvalho, D.,, E. Rieder,, B. Baxt,, R. Rodarte,, A. Tanuri, and, P. W. Mason. 1997. Tissue culture adaptation of foot-and-mouth disease virus selects viruses that bind to heparin and are attenuated in cattle. J. Virol. 71: 5115– 5123.
125. Schelhaas, M.,, J. Malmstrom,, L. Pelkmans,, J. Haugstetter,, L. Ellgaard,, K. Grunewald, and, A. Helenius. 2007. Simian virus 40 depends on ER protein folding and quality control factors for entry into host cells. Cell 131: 516– 529.
126. Seth, S.,, M. K. Maier,, Q. Qiu,, I. Ravens,, E. Kremmer,, R. Forster, and, G. Bernhardt. 2007. The murine pan T cell marker CD96 is an adhesion receptor for CD155 and nectin-1. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 364: 959– 965.
127. Shafren, D. R. 1998. Viral cell entry induced by cross-linked decay-accelerating factor. J. Virol. 72: 9407– 9412.
128. Shafren, D. R.,, R. C. Bates,, M. V. Agrez,, R. L. Herd,, G. F. Burns, and, R. D. Barry. 1995. Coxsackieviruses B1, B3, and B5 use decay accelerating factor as a receptor for cell attachment. J. Virol. 69: 3873– 3877.
129. Shafren, D. R.,, D. J. Dorahy,, S. J. Greive,, G. F. Burns, and, R. D. Barry. 1997. Mouse cells expressing human intercellular adhesion molecule-1 are susceptible to infection by coxsackievirus A21. J. Virol. 71: 785– 789.
130. Shafren, D. R.,, D. J. Dorahy,, R. A. Ingham,, G. F. Burns, and, R. D. Barry. 1997. Coxsackievirus A21 binds to decay-accelerating factor but requires intercellular adhesion molecule 1 for cell entry. J. Virol. 71: 4736– 4743.
132. Shi, Y.,, C. Chen,, U. Lisewski,, U. Wrackmeyer,, M. Radke,, D. Westermann,, M. Sauter,, C. Tschope,, W. Poller,, K. Klingel, and, M. Gotthardt. 2009. Cardiac deletion of the coxsackievirus-adenovirus receptor abolishes coxsackievirus B3 infection and prevents myocarditis in vivo. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 53: 1219– 1226.
133. Shieh, J. T. C., and, J. M. Bergelson. 2002. Interaction with decay-accelerating factor facilitates coxsackievirus B infection of polarized epithelial cells. J. Virol. 76: 9474– 9480.
134. Sloan, K. E.,, J. K. Stewart,, A. F. Treloar,, R. T. Matthews, and, D. G. Jay. 2005. CD155/PVR enhances glioma cell dispersal by regulating adhesion signaling and focal adhesion dynamics. Cancer Res. 65: 10930– 10937.
135. Smith, T. J.,, E. S. Chase,, T. J. Schmidt,, N. H. Olson, and, T. S. Baker. 1996. Neutralizing antibody to human rhino-virus penetrates the receptor-binding canyon. Nature 383: 350– 354.
136. Staunton, D. E.,, V. J. Merluzzi,, R. Rothlein,, R. Barton,, S. D. Marlin, and, T. A. Springer. 1989. A cell adhesion molecule, ICAM-1, is the major surface receptor for rhinoviruses. Cell 56: 849– 853.
137. Tomassini, J. E.,, D. Graham,, C. M. DeWitt,, D. W. Lineberger,, J. A. Rodkey, and, R. J. Colonno. 1989. cDNA cloning reveals that the major group rhinovirus receptor on HeLa cells is intercellular adhesion molecule 1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86: 4907– 7911.
138. Tomko, R. P.,, R. Xu, and, L. Philipson. 1997. HCAR and MCAR: the human and mouse cellular receptors for subgroup C adenoviruses and group B coxsackieviruses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 3352– 3356.
139. Triantafilou, K.,, D. Fradelizi,, K. Wilson, and, M. Triantafilou. 2002. GRP78, a coreceptor for coxsackievirus A9, interacts with major histocompatibility complex class I molecules which mediate virus internalization. J. Virol. 76: 633– 643.
140. Tsang, S. K.,, B. M. McDermott,, V. R. Racaniello, and, J. M. Hogle. 2001. Kinetic analysis of the effect of poliovirus receptor on viral uncoating: the receptor as a catalyst. J. Virol. 75: 4984– 4989.
141. Uncapher, C. R.,, C. M. DeWitt, and, R. J. Colonno. 1991. The major and minor group receptor families contain all but one human rhinovirus serotype. Virology 180: 814– 817.
142. Upla, P.,, V. Marjomaki,, P. Kankaanpaa,, J. Ivaska,, T. Hyypia,, F. G. Van Der Goot, and, J. Heino. 2004. Clustering induces a lateral redistribution of alpha 2 beta 1 integrin from membrane rafts to caveolae and subsequent protein kinase C-dependent internalization. Mol. Biol. Cell 15: 625– 636.
143. Verdaguer, N.,, M. G. Mateu,, D. Andreu,, E. Giralt,, E. Domingo, and, I. Fita. 1995. Structure of the major antigenic loop of foot-and-mouth disease virus complexed with a neutralizing antibody: direct involvement of the Arg-Gly-Asp motif in the interaction. EMBO J. 14: 1690– 1696.
144. Vlasak, M.,, I. Goesler, and, D. Blaas. 2005. Human rhinovirus type 89 variants use heparan sulfate proteoglycan for cell attachment. J. Virol. 79: 5963– 5970.
145. Vlasak, M.,, M. Roivainen,, M. Reithmayer,, I. Goesler,, P. Laine,, L. Snyers,, T. Hovi, and, D. Blaas. 2005. The minor receptor group of human rhinovirus (HRV) includes HRV23 and HRV25, but the presence of a lysine in the VP1 HI loop is not sufficient for receptor binding. J. Virol. 79: 7389– 7395.
146. Ward, T.,, P. A. Pipkin,, N. A. Clarkson,, D. M. Stone,, P. D. Minor, and, J. W. Almond. 1994. Decay accelerating factor (CD55) identified as a receptor for echovirus 7 using CELICS, a rapid immuno-focal cloning method. EMBO J. 13: 5070– 5074.
147. Williams, C. H.,, T. Kajander,, T. Hyypia,, T. Jackson,, D. Sheppard, and, G. Stanway. 2004. Integrin alpha v beta 6 is an RGD-dependent receptor for coxsackievirus A9. J. Virol. 78: 6967– 6973.
148. Xiao, C.,, C. M. Bator-Kelly,, E. Rieder,, P. R. Chipman,, A. Craig,, R. J. Kuhn,, E. Wimmer, and, M. G. Rossmann. 2005. The crystal structure of coxsackievirus A21 and its interaction with ICAM-1. Structure 13: 1019– 1033.
149. Xing, L.,, M. Huhtala,, V. Pietiainen,, J. Kapyla,, K. Vuorinen,, V. Marjomaki,, J. Heino,, M. S. Johnson,, T. Hyypia, and, R. H. Cheng. 2004. Structural and functional analysis of integrin α2I domain interaction with echovirus 1. J. Biol. Chem. 279: 11632– 11638.
150. Xing, L.,, K. Tjarnlund,, B. Lindqvist,, G. G. Kaplan,, D. Feigelstock,, R. H. Cheng, and, J. M. Casasnovas. 2000. Distinct cellular receptor interactions in poliovirus and rhinoviruses. EMBO J. 19: 1207– 1216.
151. Yamayoshi, S.,, Y. Yamashita,, J. Li,, N. Hanagata,, T. Minawa,, T. Takemura, and, S. Koike. 2009. Scavenger receptor B2 is a cellular receptor for enterovirus 71. Nat. Med. 15: 798– 801.
152. Yang, B.,, H. Chuang, and, K. D. Yang. 2009. Sialylated glycans as receptor and inhibitor of enterovirus 71 infection to DLD-1 intestinal cells. Virol. J. 6: 141.
153. Zautner, A. E.,, U. Korner,, A. Henke,, C. Badorff, and, M. Schmidtke. 2003. Heparan sulfates and coxsackievirus-adenovirus receptor: each one mediates coxsackievirus B3 PD infection. J. Virol. 77: 10071– 10077.
154. Zen, K.,, Y. Liu,, I. C. McCall,, T. Wu,, W. Lee,, B. A. Babbin,, A. Nusrat, and, C. A. Parkos. 2005. Neutrophil migration across tight junctions is mediated by adhesive interactions between epithelial coxsackie and adenovirus receptor and a junctional adhesion molecule-like protein on neutrophils. Mol. Biol. Cell 16: 2694– 2703.
155. Zhang, P.,, S. Mueller,, M. C. Morais,, C. M. Bator,, V. D. Bowman,, S. Hafenstein,, E. Wimmer, and, M. G. Rossmann. 2008. Crystal structure of CD155 and electron microscopic studies of its complexes with polioviruses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105: 18284– 18289.
156. Zhang, S., and, V. R. Racaniello. 1997. Persistent echovirus infection of mouse cells expressing the viral receptor VLA-2. Virology 235: 293– 301.
157. Zhao, R.,, D. C. Pevear,, M. J. Kremer,, V. L. Giranda,, J. A. Kofron,, R. J. Kuhn, and, M. G. Rossmann. 1996. Human rhinovirus 3 at 3.0 Å resolution. Structure 4: 1205– 1220.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.