green
Positive treatment
2.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas v. Brown
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616, 676-77 , 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104 , 59 P.3d 174 (Cal.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 980 , 123 S.Ct. 1808 , 155 L.Ed.2d 669 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
Rosenkrantz v. Marshall
See In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616, 631 , 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104 , 59 P.3d 174 *1067 (2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 980 , 123 S.Ct. 1808 , 155 L.Ed.2d 669 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Milot v. Haws
See, e.g., In re Rosenkrantz, 80 Cal.App.4th 409 , 414 n. 1, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 279 (2000) (explaining that the BPT's regulations for setting parole dates are found in title 15 of the Cal.Code of Regs., which defines "minimum eligible parole date" for life prisoners as the earliest date on which a prisoner legally may be released on parole), overruled in part by In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616 , 128 Cal. Rptr.2d 104 , 59 P.3d 174 (2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 980 , 123 S.Ct. 1808 , 155 L.Ed.2d 669 (2003). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Opalec v. Curry
“While the Board must point to factors beyond the minimum elements of the crime for which the inmate was committed, it need engage in no further comparative analysis before concluding that the particular facts of the offense make it unsafe, at that time, to fix a date for the prisoner’s release.” Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th at 1071 , 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , 104 P.3d 783 ; see also In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616, 682-83 , 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104 , 59 P.3d 174 (Cal.2002), ce rt. denied, 538 U.S. 980 , 123 S.Ct. 1808 , 155 L.Ed.2d 669 (2003) (“[t]he nature of the prisoner’s offense, alone, can c…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Willis v. Kane
“While the Board must point to factors beyond the minimum elements of the crime for which the inmate was committed, it need engage in no further comparative analysis before concluding that the particular facts of the offense make it unsafe, at that time, to fix a date for the prisoner’s release.” Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th at 1071 , 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , 104 P.3d 783 ; see also In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616, 682-83 , 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104 , 59 P.3d 174 (Cal.2002), ce rt. denied, 538 U.S. 980 , 123 S.Ct. 1808 , 155 L.Ed.2d 669 (2003) (“[t]he nature of the prisoner’s offense, alone, can c…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rodney Clay Evans v. Allen Luebbers, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center
Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804, 810 (8th Cir.1981) (holding that victim’s “statements were hearsay admissible under the ‘state of mind’ exception to the hearsay rule and constitutionally permissible under Ohio v. Roberts.” (citations omitted)); see also Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321, 324-25 (4th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 979 , 123 S.Ct. 1803 , 155 L.Ed.2d 669 (2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Clark
v.
La Marque Independent School District
v.
La Marque Independent School District
02-1303.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 21, 2003.
Published
CLARK
v.
LA MARQUE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL.
No. 02-1303.
Supreme Court of United States.
April 21, 2003.
1
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
2
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 54 Fed. Appx. 412.