green
Positive treatment
5.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Grady v. Commonwealth
(2×)
See Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1073 (9th Cir.2003) (defendant’s confession voluntary though he had been held and intermittently questioned in small room for eight hours), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 968 , 124 S.Ct. 446 , 157 L.Ed.2d 313 (2003); Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 396-402 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (where suspect interrogated for four hours in intensive care unit, had tubes in his throat and nose, was heavily medicated, had been shot, and had not been afforded counsel despite explicit request for counsel, statements deemed involuntary); Jenner v. Smith, 982 F.2d 329…
discussed
Cited "see"
Studebaker v. Uribe
Ninth Circuit case law “may be persuasive authority for purposes of determining whether a particular state court decision is an ‘unreasonable application’ of Supreme Court law, and also may help ... determine what law is ‘clearly established.’ ” Duhaime v. Ducharme, 200 F.3d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1999, as amended Jan. 10, 2000); accord Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 968 , 124 S.Ct. 446 , 157 L.Ed.2d 313 (2003), overruled in part on other grounds by Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 . *1111 Section “2254(d) (l)’s ‘contrary to’ and ‘…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gray
(2×)
See United States v. Radcliff, 331 F.3d 1153, 1162 (10th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 973 , 124 S.Ct. 446 , 157 L.Ed.2d 323 (2003); S.Rep.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Moore
See United States v. Joseph, 333 F.3d 587, 589 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 973 , 124 S.Ct. 446 , 157 L.Ed.2d 322 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Serna
See United States v. Jo seph, 333 F.3d 587, 589 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 446 , 157 L.Ed.2d 322 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Myers v. Mendoza-Powers
“The state court’s application must have been ‘objectively unreasonable.’” Id. (citation omitted); see also Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 968 , 124 S.Ct. 446 , 157 L.Ed.2d 313 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dotson v. Scribner
“The state court’s application must have been ‘objectively unreason *873 able.’ ” Id. (citation omitted); see also Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 968 , 124 S.Ct. 446 , 157 L.Ed.2d 313 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Boultinghouse v. Hall
“The state court’s application must have been ‘objectively unreasonable.’ ” Id. at 520-21 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 (citation omitted); see also Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 968 , 124 S.Ct. 446 , 157 L.Ed.2d 313 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ricky Lee Earp v. John Stokes, Warden, of California State Prison at San Quentin
Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 907 (9th Cir.2004); see also Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir.2003), ce rt. denied, 540 U.S. 968 , 124 S.Ct. 446 , 157 L.Ed.2d 313 (2003); Duhaime v. Ducharme, 200 F.3d 597, 602-03 (9th Cir.2000) (Ninth Circuit precedent derived from an extension of a Supreme Court decision is not “clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Earp v. Ornoski
Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 907 (9th Cir.2004); see also Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 968 , 124 S.Ct. 446 , 157 L.Ed.2d 313 (2003); Duhaime v. Ducharme, 200 F.3d 597, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2000) (Ninth Circuit precedent derived from an extension of a Supreme Court decision is not “clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Honken
See, e.g., United States v. Joseph, 333 F.3d 587, 591 (5th Cir.) (“The district court is required to state, outside the presence of the jury, the reasons for which it has chosen to shackle the defendant.”), cert, denied, 540 U.S. 973 , 124 S.Ct. 446 , 157 L.Ed.2d 322 (2003); United States v. Durham, 287 F.3d 1297, 1305 (11th Cir.2002) (“[T]he district court is required to place the reasons for its decision to use such [security] measures on the record.”). *1031 ii.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lewis
v.
United States
v.
United States
03-6256.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 20, 2003.
Published
LEWIS
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 03-6256.
Supreme Court of United States.
October 20, 2003.
1
Appeal from the C. A. 9th Cir.
2
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 67 Fed. Appx. 435.