green
Positive treatment
8.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Miranda
The rationale for “combining” or “merging,” instead of vacating, the convictions was to alleviate the risk of any collateral consequences that may arise as a result of multiple convictions; see id.; but also to prevent a defendant from “[avoiding] all punishment if an appellate court later reversed the single conviction on the compound offense but would have upheld the conviction on the lesser count.” Id., 134; see also State v. Chicano, supra, 216 Conn. 723 (“[t]he argument for vacating only the sentence is that if the conviction on the lesser offense is vacated, the defendant m…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ernesto J. Benevento, Ernest A. Benevento, Earl A. Keller, and Carmine Loiacono
When an individual is sentenced on both a lesser and greater offense, the conviction on the lesser charge is “combined” with the conviction on the greater offense, although it is not “merged out of existence.” Id. at 135.
discussed
Cited "see"
Fisher v. United States
See United States v. Osorio Estrada, 751 F.2d 128, 135 (2d Cir.1984) cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 , 106 S.Ct. 97 , 88 L.Ed.2d 79 (1985) (noting that, under this method, the conviction on the lesser Count was combined with the conviction on the greater Count, but was not merged out of existence).
discussed
Cited "see"
Michael Tomlin v. Carl Anderson, Warden
See Leroy v. Marshall, 757 F.2d 94 , 95 & n. 1 (6th Cir.) (explaining that the "cause and prejudice" standard of Wainwright applies to habeas claims which were not raised on direct appeal in the state courts), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 831 (1985). 18 Tomlin attempts to demonstrate "cause" by pointing out that, because he was not incarcerated pursuant to his conviction and sentence until the Ohio Supreme Court decided his appeal, "it would have been procedurally premature for him to raise an Eighth Amendment issue at the state court level." We cannot agree.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Silvers
See United States v. Osorio Estrada, 751 F.2d 128, 135 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 , 106 S.Ct. 97 , 88 L.Ed.2d 79 (1985); United States v. Grayson, 795 F.2d 278, 287 (3d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 1899 , 95 L.Ed.2d 505 (1987); United States v. Medina, 940 F.2d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir.1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Pedro Rios v. Dennis A. Baker, Warden
See Leroy v. Marshall, 757 F.2d 94, 99 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 831 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
John B. Kaiser v. Rex Zent, Warden
See Leroy v. Marshall, 757 F.2d 94, 99 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 831 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ghanayem
See United States v. Perez-Leon, 757 F.2d 866, 872 (7th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Gonzalez v. United States, 474 U.S. 831 , 106 S.Ct. 99 , 88 L.Ed.2d 80 (1985); United States v. Perez-Reyes, 754 F.Supp. 637, 642 (N.D.Ill.1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Andrew B. Ely v. William Dallman, Warden
See Leroy v. Marshall, 757 F.2d 94, 99 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 831 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gary Van Wyhe
See United States v. Perez-Leon, 757 F.2d 866, 875 (7th Cir.) (closing argument is limited to facts in evidence), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 831 , 106 S.Ct. 99 , 88 L.Ed.2d 80 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Charles Henry Reed v. Dewey Sowders, Warden
See Leroy v. Marshall, 757 F.2d 94, 96 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 831 (1985). 5 Accordingly, we deny Reed's request for counsel and affirm the district court's judgment for the reasons stated in the magistrate's report and recommendation dated January 24, 1990, as adopted by the district court's order dated February 13, 1990.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Alex Beverly, Betty McNulty George Brown and Diane Griffin
Rivera-Espinoza, 905 F.2d at 157 -58 (quoting United States v. Lazcano, 881 F.2d 402, 406 (7th Cir.1989)); see United States v. Perez-Leon, 757 F.2d 866, 871 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 831 , 106 S.Ct. 99 , 88 L.Ed.2d 80 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lisa Jones
See United States v. Osorio Estrada, 751 F.2d 128, 132 (2d Cir.1984), aff 'd on reh’g, 757 F.2d 27, 29 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 , 106 S.Ct. 97 , 88 L.Ed.2d 79 (1985); cf. United States v. Arrington, 867 F.2d 122, 125 (2d Cir.) (district court determined that credible witness “ ‘would really testify in a way to implicate and accuse’ ” defense counsel in a scheme to keep witnesses from testifying), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 70 , 107 L.Ed.2d 37 (1989); Cancilla, 725 F.2d at 868 n. 1 (court assumed “arguendo that counsel did engage in such criminal activities”)…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fuentes
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See United States v. Osorio Estrada, 751 F.2d 128, 134-35 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 , 106 S.Ct. 97 , 88 L.Ed.2d 79 (1985); United States v. Gomberg, 715 F.2d 843, 851-52 (3d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1078 , 104 S.Ct. 1439 , 79 L.Ed.2d 760 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Marian Fusko
See United States v. Perez-Leon, 757 F.2d 866, 871 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 831 , 106 S.Ct. 99 , 88 L.Ed.2d 80 (1985); United States v. Thoma, 726 F.2d 1191, 1197 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1228 , 104 S.Ct. 2683 , 81 L.Ed.2d 878 (1984); United States v. Kaminski, 703 F.2d 1004, 1008 (7th Cir.1983). “[T]he most important element of the equation is whether the defendant was reluctant to commit the offense.” Thoma, 726 F.2d at 1197 (citing Kaminski, 703 F.2d at 1008 ).
cited
Cited "see"
David Jackman v. Al Parke, Warden Kentucky State Reformatory
See Leroy v. Marshall, 757 F.2d 94 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 831 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
William A. Rose v. Al C. Parke
See Leroy v. Marshall, 757 F.2d 94, 97-99 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 831 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Ray Letcher Williams v. Michael Dutton, Warden
See Leroy v. Marshall, 757 F.2d 94 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 831 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Elaine Hicks v. George S. Mickelson
(2×)
See United States v. Harvey, 756 F.2d 636, 640 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 831 , 106 S.Ct. 97 -98, 88 L.Ed.2d 79 (1985); United States v. Clifford, 640 F.2d 150, 153 (8th Cir.1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Vernon E. Rodman v. Carl E. Humphreys
See Leroy v. Marshall, 757 F.2d 94, 97-100 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 831 (1985); Keener v. Ridenour, 594 F.2d 581 (6th Cir.1979). 4 When a state prisoner is barred by a procedural default from raising a constitutional claim in the state courts, he may not litigate that claim in a Sec. 2254 habeas corpus proceeding without showing cause for and actual prejudice from the default.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Steven R. Wycoff v. Paul Hedgepeth Burton, Ltd. Debbie Nichols Ron Welder Dan Deuse Ruth McVey
Compare Lyon v. Farrier, 727 F.2d 766, 769 (8th Cir.) (“prison officials must thoroughly and promptly investigate credible information about escapes”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 839 , 105 S.Ct. 140 , 88 L.Ed.2d 79 (1984).
Corley
v.
Herman, Clerk, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
v.
Herman, Clerk, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
No. 84-6682.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1985.
Published
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certio-rari denied.