green
Positive treatment
3.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Cassidy v. McNeil
See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 , reh’g denied, 501 U.S. 1277 , 112 S.Ct. 27 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Pervis Payne v. State of Tennessee
See Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 , 111 S. Ct. 2597 , reh’g denied, 501 U.S. 1277 , 112 S. Ct. 28 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Joseph v. McGinnis
See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 , reh’g denied, 501 U.S. 1277 , 112 S.Ct. 27 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
United States ex rel. Frierson v. Gramley
See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731-32 , 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 , reh’g denied, 501 U.S. 1277 , 112 S.Ct. 27 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hudson v. Whitley
See Russell v. Collins, 944 F.2d 202, 205 (5th Cir.) (per curiam) (finding that "[a]s [the McCleskey] standard applies here only to procedure in the habeas review, retroactive application of the standard is not at issue" 11 and, thus applying McCleskey), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 112 S.Ct. 30 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1991); Woods v. Whitley, 933 F.2d 321, 323 (5th Cir. 1991) (stating that "[a]lthough this case was decided by the district court prior to the issuance of McCleskey, the procedure the court followed and the result it reached comport with that case").9 We apply the cause and prejudice st…
discussed
Cited "see"
Larry Hudson v. John P. Whitley, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary
(2×)
See Russell v. Collins, 944 F.2d 202, 205 (5th Cir.) (per curiam) (finding that "[a]s [the McCleskey ] standard applies here only to procedure in the habeas review, retroactive application of the standard is not at issue" and, thus applying McCleskey ), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 30 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1991); Woods v. Whitley, 933 F.2d 321, 323 (5th Cir.1991) (stating that "[a]lthough this case was decided by the district court prior to the issuance of McCleskey, the procedure the court followed and the result it reached comport with that case"). 9 We apply the cause and prejudice …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Jones
(2×)
See, e.g., Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 , 111 S.Ct. 2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 , reh’g denied, 501 U.S. 1277 , 112 S.Ct. 28 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1991) (adopting rational and fail- approach to alternative means analysis); Kitchen, 756 P.2d at 109 (making distinction between alternative means cases and multiple act cases, identifying Petrich as a multiple acts case); State v. James, 698 P.2d 1161, 1165-67 (Alaska 1985) (holding that juries need not unanimously agree upon particular statutory theory of crime charged if there is sufficient evidence in record to sup port either theory, where jury is…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Fitzgerald
P. 7(c)(1) (stating that "[i]t may be alleged in a single count that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown or that the defendant committed it by one or more specified means."); see also Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 631-2 (1991), reh'g denied, 501 U.S. 1277 (1991) (providing that jurors are not required to agree on a single means of commission).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Fitzgerald
This means that "[p]roof of any one of the violations charged conjunctively in the indictment will sustain a conviction." Id.; see also United States v. Champion, 387 F.2d 561, 563 (4th Cir.1967) (providing that an indictment worded conjunctively under a statute which uses disjunctive language may be disjunctively considered by the jury and proof on any one of the allegations is sufficient to sustain a conviction); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(c)(1) (stating that "[i]t may be alleged in a single count that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown or that the defendant comm…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Roberts v. Scully
See, e.g., Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 738-40 , 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2559 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 , reh. denied, 501 U.S. 1277 , 112 S.Ct. 27 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1991); Quirama v. Michele, 983 F.2d 12, 14 (2d Cir.1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ordway et ux.
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 90-1503.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Sep 13, 1991.
Published
ante, p. 1261. Motion of petitioners to defer consideration of petition for rehearing denied. Petition for rehearing denied. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.