Bullock v. Dretke, Dir., Texas Dep't of Crim. Just., Corr. Institutions Div., 543 U.S. 1007 (2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Bullock v. Dretke, Dir., Texas Dep't of Crim. Just., Corr. Institutions Div., 543 U.S. 1007 (2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Commonwealth v. Bedford (pasuperct, 2012-05-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Bedford
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 576 Pa. 23, 52 , 838 A.2d 663, 680 (2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1008 , 125 S.Ct. 617 , 160 L.Ed.2d 471 (2004) (stating: “[Ajlthough generally no reference may be made at trial in a criminal case to a defendant’s arrest or incarceration for a previous crime, there is no rule in Pennsylvania which prohibits reference to a defendant’s incarceration awaiting trial or arrest for the crimes charged”).
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Robinson (2×)
Pa. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. (Raymond) Johnson, 576 Pa. 23 , 838 A.2d 663, 682 (2003), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 617 , 160 L.Ed.2d 471 (2004); Commonwealth v. (Roderick) Johnson, 572 Pa.283, 815 A.2d 563, 575 (2002).
cited Cited "see" Orozco v. Superior Court
Cal. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See 125 S.Ct. 617 ALDRICH, J.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Patterson
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
As noted by appellant, a jury, "in order to refresh [its] recollection, [may request] a reading of a portion of the testimony actually given at the trial[;] it is [then] a matter within the discretion of the trial court whether to grant such [a] request." Commonwealth v. Peterman , 430 Pa. 627 , 244 A.2d 723 , 726 (1968) ; see also Commonwealth v. Johnson , 576 Pa. 23 , 838 A.2d 663 , 677 (2003), cert. denied , 543 U.S. 1008 , 125 S.Ct. 617 , 160 L.Ed.2d 471 (2004).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hubbs v. Alamao
C.D. Cal. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
“However, once a petition is filed, there is no additional limit on the time in which the allegations of the petition must be tried.” Id.; People v. Superior Court (Ramirez), 70 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1390 , 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 (1999); see also Orozco v. Superior Court, 117 Cal.App.4th 170, 179 , 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 573 (2004) (“The statutory scheme does not require that the recommitment order be obtained before the expiration of the underlying term.” (emphasis in original)), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 617 , 160 L.Ed.2d 471 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bullock
v.
Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
04-6493.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 29, 2004.
543 U.S. 1007
Published

543 U.S. 1007

BULLOCK
v.
DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION.

No. 04-6493.

Supreme Court of United States.

November 29, 2004.

1

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.