green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.2 score
“he fact that a petitioner has not complied with a state procedural rule cannot bar federal review of constitutional claims if the state rule is not 'firmly established and regularly followed.”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Frederick White v. James Schotten, Warden
he fact that a petitioner has not complied with a state procedural rule cannot bar federal review of constitutional claims if the state rule is not 'firmly established and regularly followed.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Climmie Jones, Jr.
See Mapes v. Coyle, 171 F.3d 408, 427 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 946 , 120 S.Ct. 369 , 145 L.Ed.2d 284 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Max Alexander Soffar v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
(2×)
See Crane v. Johnson, 178 F.3d 309, 312 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 947 , 120 S.Ct. 369 , 145 L.Ed.2d 285 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lawson v. Warden, Mansfield Correctional Institution
See Mapes v. Coyle, 171 F.3d 408 (6th Cir.) (concluding that the petitioner had procedurally defaulted a claim, by not raising it on direct appeal, when the post-conviction court refused to address the merits of the issue on the basis of res judicata), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 946 , 120 S.Ct. 369 , 145 L.Ed.2d 284 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cinicola v. Scharffenberger
(2×)
See In re Catapult Entm’t, Inc., 165 F.3d 747 , 749-50 (9th Cir.) (adopting "hypothetical test”), cert. dismissed, 528 U.S. 924 , 120 S.Ct. 369 , 145 L.Ed.2d 248 (1999); In re Catron, 158 B.R. 629, 638 (E.D.Va.1993) (same), aff'd without opinion, 25 F.3d 1038 (4th Cir.1994); but see Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104 F.3d 489, 493-94 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 , 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997); In re Cajun Elec.
cited
Cited "see"
Max Alexander Soffar v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
See Crane v. Johnson, 178 F.3d 309, 312 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 947 , 120 S.Ct. 369 , 145 L.Ed.2d 285 (1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Clarke v. Johnson
See Crane v. Johnson, 178 F.3d affidavits of the prosecutor[s] involved. 309 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 369 Petitioner has no direct evidence that a (1999). plea offer was ever made.
cited
Cited "see"
MAX ALEXANDER SOFFAR v. GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION
See Crane v. Johnson, 178 F.3d 309, 312 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 369 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dickerson v. Mitchell
See also Mapes v. Coyle, 171 F.3d 408, 420 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 946 , 120 S.Ct. 369 , 145 L.Ed.2d 284 (1999)(noting that the Perry rule has been consistently applied); Brooks v. Edwards, 96 F.3d 1448 , 1996 WL 506505, at *5 (6th Cir.1996)(“The procedural rule [of res judica-ta] applicable to petitioner’s claims is an adequate and independent state ground for refusal to hear the claim by the Ohio Supreme Court.”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Davie v. Mitchell
See also Mapes v. Coyle, 171 F.3d 408, 420 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 946 , 120 S.Ct. 369 , 145 L.Ed.2d 284 (1999) (noting that the Perry rule has been consistently applied).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Sherman Howard v. Richard Gramley
See, e.g., Mapes v. Coyle, 171 F.3d 408, 427 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 369 , 145 L.Ed.2d 284 (1999); Bethea v. Artuz, 126 F.3d 124, 127 (2d Cir.1997).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Howard, Sherman v. Gramley, Richard
See, e.g., Maples v. Coyle, 171 F.3d 408, 427 (6th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 369 (1999); Bethea v. Artuz, 126 F.3d 124, 127 (2d Cir. 1997).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CATAPULT ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
v.
Stephen PERLMAN
v.
Stephen PERLMAN
No. 98-1915.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 12, 1999.
120 S. Ct. 369
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (1)
The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above-entitled ease was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46.1 of the Rules of this Court.