green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
11.4 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2009 ·
…although the lemon test is perhaps most frequently used in cases involving government allegedly giving preference to a religion, the lemon test accommodates the analysis of a claim brought under a hostility to religion theory as well.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Nurre v. Whitehead
(2×)
although the lemon test is perhaps most frequently used in cases involving government allegedly giving preference to a religion, the lemon test accommodates the 1096 analysis of a claim brought under a hostility to religion theory as well.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Nurre v. Whitehead
although the lemon test is perhaps most frequently used in cases involving government allegedly giving preference to a religion, the lemon test accommodates the analysis of a claim brought under a hostility to religion theory as well.
discussed
Cited "see"
Edwards v. Ault
(2×)
Third, and finally, where neither the first or second categories of section 2254(d)(1) apply, section 2254(d)(2) allows a writ of habeas corpus to issue if the state court decision “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2); see cf. Sexton v. Kemna, 278 F.3d 808, 811 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 886 , 123 S.Ct. 129 , 154 L.Ed.2d 145 (2002). b.
discussed
Cited "see"
Atwood v. Mapes
(2×)
Section 2254(d)(2) also allows a writ of ha-beas corpus to issue if the state court decision “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2); see cf. Sexton v. Kemna, 278 F.3d 808, 811 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 886 , 123 S.Ct. 129 , 154 L.Ed.2d 145 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nolan v. Krajcik
(2×)
See also Aponte v. Calderon, 284 F.3d 184, 196 (1st Cir.2002) (“we have consistently held that ‘the injury to reputation must be accompanied by a change in the injured person’s status or rights (under substantive state or federal law).’ ”) (quoting Beitzell v. Jeffrey, 643 F.2d 870, 878 (1st Cir.1981)), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 886 , 123 S.Ct. 128 , 154 L.Ed.2d 145 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Quinn v. Dooley
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 , 122 S.Ct. 1843 , 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002) (discussing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)); see also Sexton v. Kemna, 278 F.3d 808, 811 (8th Cir.) (analyzing Williams), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 129 , 154 L.Ed.2d 145 (2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sexton
v.
Kemna, Superintendent, Crossroads Correctional Center
v.
Kemna, Superintendent, Crossroads Correctional Center
02-154.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 2002.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (3)
SEXTON
v.
KEMNA, SUPERINTENDENT, CROSSROADS CORRECTIONAL CENTER.
No. 02-154.
Supreme Court of United States.
October 7, 2002.
1
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
2
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 278 F. 3d 808.