Szalay v. Curtis, 531 U.S. 1168 (2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Szalay v. Curtis, 531 U.S. 1168 (2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tyree v. Commonwealth (mass, 2019-02-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Tyree v. Commonwealth
Mass. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rasten v. Northeastern Univ ., 432 Mass. 1003 , 1003, 731 N.E.2d 1074 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1168 , 121 S.Ct. 1133 , 148 L.Ed.2d 998 (2001).
cited Cited "see" Stacy v. Superior Court Department
Mass. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rasten v. Northeastern Univ ., 432 Mass. 1003 , 1003, 731 N.E.2d 1074 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1168 , 121 S.Ct. 1133 , 148 L.Ed.2d 998 (2001).
cited Cited "see" Panda v. Panda
unknown court · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rasten v. Northeastern Univ. , 432 Mass. 1003 , 1003, 731 N.E.2d 1074 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1168 , 121 S.Ct. 1133 , 148 L.Ed.2d 998 (2001).
discussed Cited "see" State of New Jersey v. Ebonee R. Williams
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Young, 223 F.3d 905, 911 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1168 , 121 S. Ct. 1133 , 148 L.
discussed Cited "see" State of New Jersey v. Ebonee R. Williams
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Young, 223 F.3d 905, 911 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1168 , 121 S. Ct. 1133 , 148 L.
cited Cited "see" Isbell v. Ryan
C.D. Ill. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Warren v. Richland County Circuit Court, 223 F.3d 454, 457 (7th Cir.2000), cert. denied by Warren v. Circuit Court of Wisc., 531 U.S. 1168 , 121 S.Ct. 1133 , 148 L.Ed.2d 999 (2001).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Browning
10th Cir. · 2001 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare United States v. Young, 223 F.3d 905, 908 (8th Cir.2000), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1133 , 148 L.Ed.2d 999 (2001) (“As a mixed question of law and fact, we ordinarily review de novo a district court’s determination that a statement was given in the course of plea negotiations.” (emphasis added)), with United States v. Sitton, 968 F.2d 947, 956 (9th Cir.1992) (“The district court’s determination of whether the parties were engaged in plea discussions is a factual finding reviewed for clear error.” (emphasis added)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Szalay
v.
Curtis, Warden
No. 00-7555.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 20, 2001.
531 U.S. 1168
Published

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.