green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.8 score
“recent post-aedpa cases ... have preserved the rule that if the original petition did not produce an adjudication on the merits a prisoner's later petition will not be deemed 'second or successive.”
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
James Eddie Garrett v. United States
recent post-aedpa cases ... have preserved the rule that if the original petition did not produce an adjudication on the merits a prisoner's later petition will not be deemed 'second or successive.
cited
Cited "see"
Mina v. Hotel on the Cay Time-Sharing Ass'n
See Flibotte v. Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc., 131 F.3d 21, 27 (1st Cir. 1997), cert. denied 523 U.S. 1123 , 118 S. Ct. 1806 , 140 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Mina v. Hotel on the Cay Time-Sharing Ass'n
See Flibotte v. Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc., 131 F.3d 21, 27 (1st Cir. 1997), cert. denied 523 U.S. 1123 , 118 S. Ct. 1806 , 140 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Edmond v. State
See Jimenez v. State, 703 So.2d 437 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1123 , 118 S.Ct. 1806 , 140 L.Ed.2d 945 (1998); Holton v. State, 573 So.2d 284 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 960 , 111 S.Ct. 2275 , 114 L.Ed.2d 726 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lanzafame v. State
See Jimenez v. State, 703 So.2d 437 (Fla.1997)(finding sufficient evidence of premeditation where defendant stabbed the victim multiple times in her chest cavity), ce rt. denied, 523 U.S. 1123 , 118 S.Ct. 1806 , 140 L.Ed.2d 945 (1998).
cited
Cited "see"
Estrada v. State
See Jimenez v. State, 703 So.2d 437 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1806 , 140 L.Ed.2d 945 (1998); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332 (Fla.1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: Mervyn Clinton Goddard, Movant
(2×)
See Pratt v. United States, 129 F.3d 54 (1st Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 1807 , 140 L.Ed.2d 945 (1998).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Brooks
See Flibotte v. Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc., 131 F.3d 21, 25 (1st Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1806 , 140 L.Ed.2d 945 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Harper
See Resendiz v. Quarterman, 454 F.3d 456 (5th Cir.2006) (per curiam); Sveum v. Smith, 403 F.3d 447 (7th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 944 , 126 S.Ct. 442 , 163 L.Ed.2d 336 (2005); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683 (4th Cir.2004); see also Pratt v. United States, 129 F.3d 54 (1st Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1123 , 118 S.Ct. 1807 , 140 L.Ed.2d 945 (1998) (holding that district court’s dismissal of § 2255 motion as unauthorized is final order where petitioner disputed AEDPA’s applicability). 3 With this much resolved, we must next ask whether Mr. Harper has succeeded in meeti…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vega-Figueroa v. United States
Indeed, “issues adverted to ip a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.” Trenkler v. United States, 268 F.3d 16, 26 (1st Cir.2001) (quoting United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.1990)); see also Pratt v. United States, 129 F.3d 54, 62 (1st Cir.1997) (“arguments not advanced and developed in an appellant’s brief are deemed waived”), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1123 , 118 S.Ct. 1807 , 140 L.Ed.2d 945 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Raineri v. United States
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A) (as incorporated in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ); see also Pratt v. United States, 129 F.3d 54, 58 (1st Cir.1997) (discussing statutory regime), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1123 , 118 S.Ct. 1807 , 140 L.Ed.2d 945 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Orozco-Ramirez
Compare In re Goddard, 170 F.3d 435 (4th Cir.1999), Shepeck v. United States, 150 F.3d 800 (7th Cir.1998) (per curiam), and United States v. Scott, 124 F.3d 1328 (10th Cir.1997) (per cu-riam ) (all holding a second habeas motion, filed after an initial motion upon which an out-of-time appeal was granted,.was not “second or successive” under AEDPA), with Pratt v. United States, 129 F.3d 54 (1st Cir.1997) (ruling that AEDPA barred Pratt’s second habeas motion as “second or successive” where it was filed after an initial motion which sought only an out-of-time appeal), cert. denied, 523…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Douglas
(2×)
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Washington, 547 Pa. 550 , 692 A.2d 1018, 1022 (1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 1806 , 140 L.Ed.2d 945 (1998); Commonwealth v. Thompson, 538 Pa. 297 , 648 A.2d 315, 324 (1994); Commonwealth v. Penn, 497 Pa. 232 , 439 A.2d 1154, 1159 (1982), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 980 , 102 S.Ct. 2251 , 72 L.Ed.2d 857 (1982); Commonwealth v. Cooley, 465 Pa. 35 , 348 A.2d 103, 107 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Guenther v. Holt
See In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45 (6th Cir.1997); Coleman v. United States, 106 F.3d 339 (10th Cir.1997); Liriano v. United States, 95 F.3d 119 (2d Cir.1996); see also Pratt v. United States, 129 F.3d 54, 57 (1st Cir.1997) (acknowledging, in dicta, that a district court could transfer a second or successive application to the court of appeals under § 1631), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 1807 , 140 L.Ed.2d 945 (1998); Benton v. Washington, 106 F.3d 162, 165 (7th Cir.1996) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alfred Mancuso v. Victor Herbert, Superintendent, Collins Correctional Facility
See also Pratt v. United States, 129 F.3d 54, 58 (1st Cir.1997) (“Congress intended that AEDPA apply to all Section 2255 petitions filed after its effective date”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1807 , 140 L.Ed.2d 945 (1998); In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192 , 1198 n. 13 (4th Cir.1997) (en banc) (“We assume without deciding” that AEDPA applies to prisoner who filed his first Section 2255 motion before and his second motion after AEDPA’s effective date); Roldan v. United States, 96 F.3d 1013, 1014 (7th Cir.1996) (applying AEDPA to petition filed after its effective date even though fir…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Guzman v. State
See, e.g., Jimenez v. State, 703 So.2d 437 (Fla.1997)(death sentence proportionate where four aggravating circumstances, including prior violent felony conviction, murder during the commission of a burglary, murder committed while under community control, and HAC, outweighed minimal statutory and nonstatutory mitigation), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 1806 , 140 L.Ed.2d 945 (1998); Rolling v. State, 695 So.2d 278 (Fla.)(death sentence proportionate where trial court found that four aggravators, including HAC, prior violent felony conviction, murders during commission of burglary or sex…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Compuware Corp.
v.
National Labor Relations Board
v.
National Labor Relations Board
No. 97-1722.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 18, 1998.
Published
Citer courts: Seventh Circuit (1)
C. A. 6th. Cir. Certiorari denied.