green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
10.0 score
“t is almost impossible to believe that a jury-already aware that credibility was an issue-would have decided the guilt phase differently had it known lied .”
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Brumwell v. Premo
t is almost impossible to believe that a jury-already aware that credibility was an issue-would have decided the guilt phase differently had it known lied .
discussed
Cited "see"
Fellows v. Dexter
See Davis v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 628, 640-41 (9th Cir.2004) (strangling victim for three to five minutes demonstrates premeditation and deliberation), cert, dismissed, 545 U.S. 1165 , 126 S.Ct. 410 , 162 L.Ed.2d 933 (2005); People v. Cook, 39 Cal.4th 566, 603-04 , 47 Cal. Rptr.3d 22, 54-55 , 139 P.3d 492 (2006) (finding substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation when defendant beat victim, was persuaded to leave, but shortly thereafter stated “I should have killed the mother” and returned and beat the victim with a stick, causing extensive head and facial injuries), cert. denied…
discussed
Cited "see"
Jane P. Evans v. Pearson Enterprises, Incorporated
See Marshall v. Marshall, 392 F.3d 1118 , 1135 (9th Cir.2004), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 35 , 162 L.Ed.2d 933 (2005) (declaring the plaintiff's claim a "thinly veiled will contest"); Storm v. Storm, 328 F.3d 941, 945 (7th Cir.2003) (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
Evans v. Pearson Enterprises, Inc.
See Marshall v. Marshall, 392 F.3d 1118 , 1135 (9th Cir.2004), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 35 , 162 L.Ed.2d 933 (2005) (declaring the plaintiffs claim a “thinly veiled will contest”); Storm v. Storm, 328 F.3d 941, 945 (7th Cir.2003) (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
Motley v. Parks
See ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 34 , 162 L.Ed.2d 933 (2005). 4 Thus, the very justification for Saucier's first step is inapplicable; avoiding the constitutional question will not impede the elaboration of constitutional principles, and answering the constitutional question would foster neither certainty nor finality.
discussed
Cited "see"
Motley v. Parks
See — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 34 , 162 L.Ed.2d 933 (2005). 4 Thus, the very justification for Saucier’s first step is inapplicable; avoiding the constitutional question will not impede the elaboration of constitutional principles, and answering the constitutional question would foster neither certainty nor finality.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
LUNBERY v. Hornbeak
(2×)
Under AEDPA, a writ of habeas corpus may be granted only if the state court’s decision (1) was “contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) was “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); see also Davis v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 628, 637 (9th Cir.2004), cert. dismissed, 545 U.S. 1165 , 126 S.Ct. 410 , 162 L.Ed.2d 933 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ramirez v. Almager
Id.; see also Davis v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 628, 638 (9th Cir.2004), cert. dismissed, 545 U.S. 1165 , 126 S.Ct. 410 , 162 L.Ed.2d 933 (2005) (habeas relief unavailable unless joinder “actually rendered] petitioner’s state trial fundamentally unfair”); Sandoval v. Calderon, 241 F.3d 765, 771-72 (9th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 847 , 122 S.Ct. 112 , 151 L.Ed.2d 69 (2001) and 534 U.S. 943 , 122 S.Ct. 322 , 151 L.Ed.2d 241 (2001) (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services
v.
Ahlborn
v.
Ahlborn
No. 04-1506.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Sep 27, 2005.
Cited by 6 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (1)
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.