green
Positive treatment
4.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Delph v. Trent
(2×)
See Moore v. Winebrenner, 927 F.2d 1312 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 828 , 112 S.Ct. 97 , 116 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991); Shrader v. White, 761 F.2d 975, 979 (4th Cir.1985) (inmate must suffer “significant mental distress” and danger must be “totally without penological justification”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barke v. Berge
See Weaver v. Pung, 925 F.2d 1097, 1099 (8th Cir.) (noting that “[Rule 3(b) ] does not direct the clerk to file the petition upon receipt of the petition and an application to proceed in forma pauperis” and that “the date on which the filing fee was paid was the earliest date on which [the petitioner’s] petitions could have been filed”), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 828 , 112 S.Ct. 99 , 116 L.Ed.2d 70 (1991); Norlander v. Plasky, 964 F.Supp. 39 (D.Mass.1997) (“Rule 3(b) contemplates the occurrence of two things.
discussed
Cited "see"
Alvarez v. United States
See Murchu v. United States, 926 F.2d 50, 55 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 828 (1991). 3 (2) Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, and related deprivations of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, in connection with the erroneous admission into evidence of co-defendant Matos's pre-trial statement.
discussed
Cited "see"
Alvarez v. United States
See Murchu ___ ______ v. United States, 926 F.2d 50, 55 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, _____________ ____________ 502 U.S. 828 (1991). (2) Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, and related deprivations of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, in connection with the erroneous admission into evidence of co-defendant Matos's pre-trial statement.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Donald K. Boman
See, for example, United States v. Boyd, 924 F.2d 945, 947-48 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 828 (1991) (holding that a road flare brandished as if it were dynamite is a dangerous weapon because it can be used to inflict serious bodily injury or could attract deadly force in response, even though the defendant did not actually light the flare); United States v. Harris, 44 F.3d 1206, 1216 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1806 (1995) (holding that a particular brand of mace was not a dangerous weapon where there was no evidence to support the government's claim that the mace could cause d…
cited
Cited "see"
Treadwell v. Murray
See Moore v. Winebrenner, 927 F.2d 1312, 1315 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 828 , 112 S.Ct. 97 , 116 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Frazier v. State of Nebraska
Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) (per curiam) (“The federal habeas statute gives the United States district courts jurisdiction to entertain petitions for habeas relief only for persons who are ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’” (emphasis in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a))); see also Weaver v. Pung, 925 F.2d 1097, 1099 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 828 (1991) (“Custody is tested at the time of filing the petition.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Rico
(2×)
See also, Murchu v. United States, 926 F.2d 50, 54 (1st Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 828 , 112 S.Ct. 99 , 116 L.Ed.2d 70 .
Moore
v.
Winebrenner, Warden
v.
Winebrenner, Warden
No. 90-7865.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1991.
Published
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.