green
Positive treatment
3.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Trice v. Baldwin
See McKenzie v. McCormick, 27 F3d 1415, 1419-20 (9th Cir 1994), cert den_US_, 115 S Ct 916 , 130 L Ed 2d 797 (1995) (no presumption of prejudice without a showing that the prosecutor conveyed information relevant to sentencing); United States v. DeLeo, 422 F2d 487, 499 (1st Cir), cert den 397 US 1037 (1970) (prosecutor’s ex parte conversation with trial judge to explain he had the flu was improper, but no prejudice resulted because the merits of the case were not discussed); Haller v. Robbins, 409 F2d 857, 860 (1st Cir 1969) (prosecutor communicating highly detrimental information to judge b…
examined
Cited "see"
Duncan Peder McKenzie Jr. v. Rick Day, Director, Department of Corrections and Human Services
(3×)
See McKenzie v. McCormick, 27 F.3d 1415 , 1417 n. 3 (9th Cir.1994), cert denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 916 , 130 L.Ed.2d 797 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
LaGrand v. Stewart
See also Turpin v. Kassulke, 26 F.3d 1392, 1397 (6th Cir.1994) (reversing district court’s granting of habeas petition after reviewing the testimony excluded by the state trial court and concluding that the evidence was indeed “fundamentally untrustworthy”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1118 , 115 S.Ct. 916 , 130 L.Ed.2d 797 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 433, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 631 Karl Hinze Lagrand v. Terry Stewart, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Walter Burnhart Lagrand v. Terry Stewart, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections
See also Turpin v. Kassulke, 26 F.3d 1392, 1397 (6th Cir.1994) (reversing district court's granting of habeas petition after reviewing the testimony excluded by the state trial court and concluding that the evidence was indeed "fundamentally untrustworthy"), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1118 , 115 S.Ct. 916 , 130 L.Ed.2d 797 (1995). 91 We need not answer the question here because, even assuming that federal review is required, the Arizona Supreme Court's conclusion-that Karl's statement exculpating Walter was not sufficiently reliable to come in under Rule 804(b)(3)-finds ample support in the record…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gerlaugh v. Lewis
Paradis, 20 F.3d at 956 ; see also McKenzie v. McCormick, 27 F.3d 1415, 1418-20 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — *1424 U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 916 , 130 L.Ed.2d 797 (1995) (holding that petitioner has burden of proving consideration of improper evidence).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Barrow
v.
Board of Regents of the University of Texas at El Paso
v.
Board of Regents of the University of Texas at El Paso
No. 94-7045.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 17, 1995.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.