Bartels Trust for the Benefit of the Univ. of New Haven v. United States, 531 U.S. 978 (2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Bartels Trust for the Benefit of the Univ. of New Haven v. United States, 531 U.S. 978 (2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (26 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Evans v. PEMEX (txsd, 2005-05-11)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Evans v. PEMEX
S.D. Tex. · 2005 · confidence medium
B.V., 213 F.3d 841, 849 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 979 , 121 S.Ct. 426 , 148 L.Ed.2d 435 *591 (2000) ("when FSIA immunity has been claimed, unlimited jurisdictional discovery is not permitted as a matter of course.”) (emphasis in original); Arriba Ltd. v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (5th Cir.1992) ("The court was enticed into its discovery order prematurely, however.
discussed Cited "see" Henry E. & Nancy Horton Bartels Trust ex rel. Cornell University v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Henry E. & Nancy Horton Bartels Trust for the Benefit of the Univ. of New Haven v. United States, 209 F.3d 147 , 148 (2d Cir.2000) (“Bartels-UNH Trust”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 978 , 121 S.Ct. 426 , 148 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
cited Cited "see" Crawley v. Curtis
E.D. Mich. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Maurino v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 638, 647 (6th Cir.) (applying harmless error analysis to claims of prosecutorial misconduct), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 979 , 121 S.Ct. 427 , 148 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
cited Cited "see" Coregis Insurance v. American Health Foundation, Inc.
2d Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Henry E. & Nancy Horton Bartels Trust v. United States, 209 F.3d 147 , 149 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 426 , 148 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Casim Noble v. Walter R. Kelly, Superintendent
2d Cir. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
After AEDPA, the question arises whether a federal habeas court should continue to apply Brecht or determine instead whether the state court's decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of” Chapman . 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); see, e.g., Maurino v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 638, 645 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 427 , 148 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (adhering to Brecht ); Hale v. Gibson, 227 F.3d 1298, 1325 (10th Cir.2000) (same); Whitmore v. Kemna, 213 F.3d 431, 433 (8th Cir.2000) (expressing skepticism about the vitality of Brecht , but declining to decide the issue);…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Henry E. & Nancy Horton Bartels Trust for the Benefit of the University of New Haven
v.
United States
No. 00-220.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 6, 2000.
531 U.S. 978
Published

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.