green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
8.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2004 ·
…a petitioner 'fairly presents' his claim to the state courts by citing a provision of the constitution, federal decisions using constitutional analysis, or state decisions employing constitutional analysis in similar fact patterns.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2004 ·
…a petitioner fairly presents' his claim to the state courts by citing a provision of the constitution, federal decisions using constitutional analysis, or state decisions employing constitutional analysis in similar fact patterns.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
David B. Clinkscale v. Harold E. Carter, Warden
(4×)
a petitioner 'fairly presents' his claim to the state courts by citing a provision of the constitution, federal decisions using constitutional analysis, or state decisions employing constitutional analysis in similar fact patterns.
discussed
Cited "see"
Cobb v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution
(2×)
See Taqwiim v. Johnson, 229 F.3d 1154 (table), No. 99-3425, 2000 WL 1234322 , at *3 (6th Cir. Aug. 22, 2000) (unpublished) (citing Levine v. Torvik, 986 F.2d 1506 , 1517 n. 8 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 907 , 113 S.Ct. 3001 , 125 L.Ed.2d 694 (1993), and Ylst, 501 U.S. at 803-04 , 111 S.Ct. 2590 ), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1089 , 121 S.Ct. 809 , 148 L.Ed.2d 695 (2001). 6 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Talley v. Hageman
(2×)
See Levine v. Torvik, 986 F.2d 1506 , 1517 n. 8 (6th Cir.1993) cert. denied, 509 U.S. 907 , 113 S.Ct. 3001 , 125 L.Ed.2d 694 (1993), abrogated on other grounds by Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995); Hinkle, 271 F.3d at 244 ; and see Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 , 111 S.Ct. 2590 , 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kent E. Appleman v. Melody L. Turner, Warden
See Levine v. Torvik, 986 F.2d 1506, 1516 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 3001 (1993); Riggins v. McMackin, 935 F.2d 790, 792-93 (6th Cir.1991); Shoultes v. Laidlaw, 886 F.2d 114, 117 (6th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Gary William Holt v. W. Jeff Reynolds
See Levine v. Torvik, 986 F.2d 1506, 1512 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 3001 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Joubert
(2×)
See Levine v. Torvik, 986 F.2d 1506 (6th Cir. 1993), cert. denied _U.S___ 113 S. Ct. 3001 , 125 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vos v. Cordray
(2×)
See, e.g., Levine v. Torvik, 986 F.2d 1506, 1515 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 907 , 113 S.Ct. 3001 , 125 L.Ed.2d 694 (1993). 1 “A state cannot be said to have a federal *839 due process obligation to follow all of its procedures; such a system would result in the constitutionalizing of every state rule, and would not be administrable.” Id.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Priest v. Hudson
(2×)
Clinkscale v. Carter, 375 F.3d 430, 437 (6th Cir.2004), quoting Newton v. Million, 349 F.3d 873, 877 (6th Cir.2003); see also Levine v. Torvik, 986 F.2d 1506, 1516 (6th Cir.) cert. denied, 509 U.S. 907 , 113 S.Ct. 3001 , 125 L.Ed.2d 694 (1993)(quotation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Andrew MacKey v. Michael Dutton, Warden
(2×)
In Cremeans v. Chapleau, 62 F.3d 167 (6th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1096, 116 S.Ct. 822 , 133 L.Ed.2d 765 (1996), we cited Drope for the proposition that “[t]he question of whether Cremeans was competent to waive trial is a mixed question of law and fact.” Id. at 169 ; see also Levine v. Torvik, 986 F.2d 1506, 1514 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 907 , 113 S.Ct. 3001 , 125 L.Ed.2d 694 (1993) (“A number of courts have held that the question of mental competency is a mixed question of law and fact.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Bernard Eric Miller v. William Smith Attorney General of the State of Maryland
(4×)
See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 313, 318 , 83 S.Ct. 745, 757, 759-60 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963) (district court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing where there are no relevant facts in dispute); Pruett v. Thompson, 996 F.2d 1560, 1577 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 984 , 114 S.Ct. 487 , 126 L.Ed.2d 437 (1993); see also Levine v. Torvik, 986 F.2d 1506, 1518-19 (6th Cir.) (in considering a habeas petitioner’s request for a stay, the eourt generally looks at the substantiality of the claims, the likelihood of success and the existence of extraordinary ci…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert Charles ROOS, IV
v.
BANCFIRST OF SULPHUR, OKLAHOMA
v.
BANCFIRST OF SULPHUR, OKLAHOMA
No. 92-1753.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 21, 1993.
Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (4)
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Third Division.
Denied.