green
Positive treatment
7.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Brown
(2×)
See Vining v. State, 637 So.2d 921, 925 (Fla.) (holding that, although the defendant filed a number of motions, because the original trial date never changed as a result of those motions, no delay could be attributed to the motions), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 , 115 S.Ct. 589 , 130 L.Ed.2d 502 (1994); cf. State v. Smith, 686 S.W.2d 543, 548 (Mo. Ct.App.1985) (holding that "[t]he state did not meet its burden [under the IAD of] establish[ing] that the defendant's motions and request[s] [for discovery] delayed the trial" because: (1) "the record disclose[d] no reason why those motions could not…
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Bullock
See Commonwealth v. Adamo, 431 Pa.Super. 529 , 637 A.2d 302, 306 (1994), appeal denied, 538 Pa. 631 , 647 A.2d 507 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 , 115 S.Ct. 590 , 130 L.Ed.2d 503 (1994) (statute containing no ascertainable standard of conduct subject to facial vagueness challenge; when statute contains ascertainable standard of conduct and does not infringe on first amendment rights, vagueness issue must be determined with reference to conduct of person challenging statute).
cited
Cited "see"
Vining v. State
See Vining v. Florida, 513 U.S. 1022 , 115 S.Ct. 589 , 130 L.Ed.2d 502 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Timothy Johnston v. Al Luebbers
(2×)
Therefore, although we assume that § 2254(e)(2) does not bar the District Court from granting an evidentiary hearing, we may still “deny [Johnston] an evidentiary hearing if such a hearing would not assist in the resolution of his claim.” Breedlove, 279 F.3d at 960 ; accord Bolender v. Singletary, 16 F.3d 1547 , 1555 n. 9 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 , 115 S.Ct. 589 , 130 L.Ed.2d 502 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Timothy Johnston v. Al Luebbers
Therefore, although we assume that § 2254(e)(2) does not bar the District Court from granting an evidentiary hearing, we may still "deny [Johnston] an evidentiary hearing if such a hearing would not assist in the resolution of his claim." Breedlove, 279 F.3d at 960 ; accord Bolender v. Singletary, 16 F.3d 1547 , 1555 n.9 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
William T. Caniff v. Michael Moore
See Vining v. State, 637 So.2d 921, 924 (Fla.) (raising issue on direct appeal), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 , 115 S.Ct. 589 , 130 L.Ed.2d 502 (1994); Remeta v. Dugger, 622 So.2d 452, 454 (Fla.1993) (finding IAD speedy trial claim barred for failure to raise on direct appeal).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mills v. Singletary
See Bolender v. Singletary, 16 F.3d 1547 , 1552 n. 1 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 , 115 S.Ct. 589 , 130 L.Ed.2d 502 (1994); Cumbie v. Singletary, 991 F.2d 715, 723 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, *1278 510 U.S. 1031 , 114 S.Ct. 650 , 126 L.Ed.2d 608 (1993).
cited
Cited "see"
Mills v. Singletary
See Bolender v. Singletary, 16 F.3d 1547 , 1552 n.1 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 (1994); Cumbie v. Singletary, 991 F.2d 715, 723 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1031 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Baldwin v. Johnson
See Bolender v. Singletary, 16 F.3d 1547, 1556-57 (11th Cir.) (to prove prejudice from a sen-teneing-phase error, petitioner must show that a “reasonable probability [existed] that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances would have been different”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 , 115 S.Ct. 589 , 130 L.Ed.2d 502 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Baldwin v. Johnson
See Bolender v. Singletary, 16 F.3d 1547, 1556-57 (11th Cir.) (to prove prejudice from a sentencing-phase error, petitioner must show that a “reasonable probability [existed] that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances would have been different”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 (1994). 22 Finally, Baldwin contends that his lawyer was constitutionally ineffective because he failed to request the recusal of the state trial judge.
cited
Cited "see"
Rivera v. State
See Vining v. State, 637 So.2d 921, 926 (Fla.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 , 115 S.Ct. 589 , 130 L.Ed.2d 502 (1994); Williams v. State, 674 So.2d 155, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. McClanahan
(2×)
See State v. Nenninger, 872 S.W.2d 589, 589 , (Mo.App.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 , 115 S.Ct. 589 , 130 L.Ed.2d 503 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sisto v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.
See Vining v. State, 637 So.2d 921, 926 (Fla.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 , 115 S.Ct. 589 , 130 L.Ed.2d 502 (1994) (citing Zamora v. State, 361 So.2d 776, 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 472 (Fla.1979)); Allen v. Se-Go Indus., Inc., 510 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 518 So.2d 1273 (Fla.1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.
See Charlton v. Paramus Bd. of Educ., 25 F. 3d 194 , 198-200 (CA3), cert. denied, 513 U. S. 1022 (1994); Bailey v. USX Corp., 850 F. 2d 1506, 1509 (CA11 1988); O’Brien v. Sky Chefs, Inc., 670 F. 2d 864 , 869 (CA9 1982), overruled on other grounds by Atonio v. Wards Cove Packing Co., 810 F. 2d 1477, 1481-1482 (CA9 1987) (en banc); Pantchenko v. C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Mullins
Her point is merely an abstract statement of the law. “ ‘Insufficient points relied on preserve nothing for this court to review.’ ” Hall v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, 10 S.W.3d 540, 544 (Mo.App.1999) (quoting Green v. Douglas, 977 S.W.2d 32, 33 (Mo.App.1998)); see also State v. Nenninger, 872 S.W.2d 589 (Mo.App.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 , 115 S.Ct. 589 , 130 L.Ed.2d 503 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lewis v. State
(2×)
See also Freeman v. State, 1994 OK CR 37 , 876 P.2d 283, 287 , cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 , 115 S.Ct. 590 , 130 L.Ed.2d 503 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Beckford
See Parker v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308, 315 , 111 S.Ct. 731, 736 , 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991); see also Bolender v. Singletary, 16 F.3d 1547 , 1566 n. 27 (11th Cir.) (“Under Florida law, ... the disparate treatment of a codefendant can constitute a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance in cases where the defendants are equally culpable.”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 , 115 S.Ct. 589 , 130 L.Ed.2d 502 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lillian Kachmar v. Sungard Data Systems, Inc. Lawrence A. Gross Donna J. Pedrick
We need not decide whether the Supreme Court’s recent holding that former employees may bring suits for discriminatory retaliation under Title VII, see Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 843 , 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997); see also Charlton v. Paramus Bd. of Educ., 25 F.3d 194, 200 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 , 115 S.Ct. 590 , 130 L.Ed.2d 503 (1994), covers these facts because Kachmar failed to raise this issue in her initial brief and it is therefore waived.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Victorija Smith v. St. Louis University, a Missouri Benevolent Corporation Operating as St. Louis University Hospital and School of Medicine
(2×)
See, e.g., Charlton v. Paramus Bd. of Educ., 25 F.3d 194, 200 (3d Cir.) (“[Pjost-employment blacklisting is sometimes more damaging than on-the-job discrimination____”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 , 115 S.Ct. 590 , 130 L.Ed.2d 503 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gonzales v. Garner Food Services, Inc.
We noted that "every other court" had thus held, based upon "a common sense reading in keeping with the purpose of the statute." Id.; see also Charlton v. Paramus Bd. of Educ., 25 F.3d 194 (3rd Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022 , 115 S.Ct. 590 , 130 L.Ed.2d 503 (1994); E.E.O.C. v. Ohio Edison Co., 7 F.3d 541 (6th Cir.1993); Passer v. American Chemical Society, 935 F.2d 322 (D.C.Cir.1991); E.E.O.C. v. J.M.
Adamo
v.
Pennsylvania
v.
Pennsylvania
No. 94-6215.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 28, 1994.
Published
Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.