green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
14.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2010 ·
…federal court may not second-guess a state court's fact-finding process unless ... it determines that the state court was not merely wrong, but actually unreasonable.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hurles v. Ryan
(2×)
ith the state court having refused an evidentiary hearing, we need not of course defer to the state court's factual findings- if that is indeed how those stated findings should be characterized - when they were made without such a hearing.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Amos Osborn v. Brian Belleque
(2×)
federal court may not second-guess a state court's fact-finding process unless ... it determines that the state court was not merely wrong, but actually unreasonable.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Quintana v. Lundgren
we believe the interests of finality and ease of administration, articulated in coss and daniels, apply with equal force to 2241 petitions.... accordingly, we hold a petitioner cannot collaterally attack an expired state court conviction under 2241
discussed
Cited "see"
Myers v. Mendoza-Powers
(2×)
See Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1001 (9th Cir.) (state court findings made under a misapprehension as to correct legal standard), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1038 , 125 S.Ct. 809 , 160 L.Ed.2d 605 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robidoux v. O'BRIEN
(2×)
Compare Wilson v. Workman, 577 F.3d 1284, 1292 (10th Cir.2009) (en banc), and Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1001 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1038 , 125 S.Ct. 809 , 160 L.Ed.2d 605 (2004), with Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 210 , 238 (3d Cir.2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1063 , 125 S.Ct. 2516 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1114 (2005), and Mendiola v. Schomig, 224 F.3d 589, 592-93 (7th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 949 , 121 S.Ct 2591 , 150 L.Ed.2d 750 (2001). 6 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte Hood
(2×)
PROC. art. 11.071 § 5. [18] See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). [19] See Hood, 211 S.W.3d at 776-77 . [20] See Ex parte McFarland, 163 S.W.3d 743, 748 (Tex.Crim.App.2005). [21] Ex parte McFarland, 163 S.W.3d at 748 ; Ex parte Drake, 883 S.W.2d 213, 215 (Tex. Crim.App.1994). [22] 550 U.S. 233 , 127 S.Ct. 1654 , 167 L.Ed.2d 585 (2007). [23] See Plurality op. at 407-08. [24] See Hood, 211 S.W.3d at 776 . [25] See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). [26] See Hood, 211 S.W.3d at 777 . [27] 233 S.W.3d 319, 322-23 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). [28] See Hughes v. Quarterman, 530 F.3d 336, 341-42 (5th Cir.2008), cert. denied…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Walton v. Hill
(2×)
Under section 2254(d)(2), which involves purely factual questions resolved by the state court, “the question on review is whether an appellate panel, applying the normal standards of appellate review, could reasonably conclude that the finding is supported by the record.” Lambert, 393 F.3d at 978 ; see also Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir.) (“a federal *1165 court may not second-guess a state court’s fact-finding process unless, after review of the state-court record, it determines that the state court was not merely wrong, but actually unreasonable”), cert. denied, 543 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
Deportation is a collateral consequence because deportation proceedings are “beyond the control and responsibility of the [trial] court in which [the petitioner’s criminal] conviction was entered.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) El-Nobani v. United States, 287 F.3d 417, 421 (6th Cir. 2002); see also Broomes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 1251 , 1256-57 (10th Cir.) (deportation collateral consequence of criminal conviction because state courts have no control over whether criminal defendant will be deported), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1034 , 125 S. Ct. 809 , 160 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rice v. Pliler
(2×)
See Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 742 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam); see also Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1038 , 125 S.Ct. 809 , 160 L.Ed.2d 605 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wheeler v. Yarborough
(2×)
In addition, we may grant habeas relief where the state court’s decision was “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2); see also Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1038 , 125 S.Ct. 809 , 160 L.Ed.2d 605 (2004) (applying an objective standard of reasonableness).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wheeler v. Yarborough
(2×)
In addition, we may grant habeas relief where the state court’s decision was “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2); see also Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1038 , 125 S.Ct. 809 , 160 L.Ed.2d 605 (2004) (applying an objective standard of reasonableness).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Burleson
v.
Hancock County Sheriff’s Department Civil Service Commission Et Al.
v.
Hancock County Sheriff’s Department Civil Service Commission Et Al.
04-180.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 13, 2004.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (4) · C.D. California (1)
Ct. App. Miss.[*1039] Motion of North Carolina et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.