green
Positive treatment
5.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Baldwin v. Johnson
See Meeks v. Singletary, 963 F.2d 316, 319 (11th Cir. 1992) (“[A] habeas corpus petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his or her claims if he or she alleges facts that, if 9 proved at the hearing, would entitle petitioner to relief.”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 950 (1993); Routly v. Singletary, 33 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir. 1994) (stating that the petitioner bears the burden of establishing the need for a federal evidentiary hearing in addition to a state court hearing on the claim at issue), cert. denied, (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Baldwin v. Johnson
See Meeks v. Singletary, 963 F.2d 316, 319 (11th Cir.1992) (“[A] habeas corpus petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his or her claims if he or she alleges facts that, if proved at the hearing, would entitle petitioner to relief”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 950 , 113 S.Ct. 1362 , 122 L.Ed.2d 741 (1993); Routly v. Singletary, 33 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir.1994) (stating that the petitioner bears the burden of establishing the need for a federal evidentiary hearing in addition to a state court hearing on the claim at issue), cert. denied, (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Herbert Whitlock, Stanley Wrice, and Bennie Lopez v. Adrienne Johnson, Melvin Allen, and George Detella
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 316-17 (7th Cir.1992) (finding no justification for a blanket policy that allowed inmates and prison staff who are called as witnesses to refuse, without explanation, to appear at the hearing), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 950 , 113 S.Ct. 1362 , 122 L.Ed.2d 741 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Leon Thomas v. Herbert Newkirk
See Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 319 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 950 (1993); Saenz v. Young, 811 F.2d 1172, 1174 (7th Cir.1987) ("As there is no mystery about [the CAB's] reasoning process, despite the extreme brevity of its statement of reasons, that statement is not so deficient as to create error of constitutional magnitude.").
discussed
Cited "see"
Weems v. Vose
See Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 318-19 (7th Cir.1992) (finding no due process violation in similar circumstances), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 950 (1993). 4 Third, as the Supreme Court has recently made clear, the right of access to the courts is the "right to bring a grievance that the inmate wishe[s] to present." Lewis v. Casey, 1996 WL 340797 , at * 5 (U.S. June 24, 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Weems v. Vose
See Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 318-19 (7th ___ ______ _____ Cir. 1992) (finding no due process violation in similar circumstances), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 950 (1993). _____ ______ Third, as the Supreme Court has recently made clear, the right of access to the courts is the "right to bring a grievance that the inmate wishe[s] to present." Lewis v. _____ Casey, 1996 WL 340797 , at *5 (U.S June 24, 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Richard E. Melvin v. United States
See Davis v. United States, 972 F.2d 227, 230-31 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 950 , 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 740 (1993) (citation omitted) (“ ‘Because the right to possess firearms is the civil right with which section 921(a)(20) is concerned,’ a conviction will continue to count if state law prohibits the [defendant] from possessing a firearm even if other civil rights have been restored.”).
cited
Cited "see"
McKinney v. Hanks
See Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308 (7th Cir.1992), cert. den., 507 U.S. 950 , 113 S.Ct. 1362 , 122 L.Ed.2d 741 (1993).
cited
Cited "see"
The Food and Drug Administration's Discretion to Approve Methods of Detection and to Define the Term \No Residue\" Pursuant to the Federal Food
See Les v. Reilly, 968 F.2d 985 (9th Cir. 1992), cert, denied, 507 U.S. 950 (1993); Public Citizen v. Young, 831 F.2d 1108 (D.C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
George Olbert Hood v. United States
On the contrary, as we recently reiterated in Collins, the "fact that the order of discharge itself did not contain an express limitation on the right to possess firearms is not controlling." Collins, 321 F.3d at 697 (quoting Wind, 986 F.2d at 1252 (Magill, J. & Hansen, J. concurring)); see also Davis v. United States, 972 F.2d 227 , 230–31 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that defendant's prior Nebraska felony conviction was properly counted for sentence enhancement purposes even if defendant's certificate of discharge did not include the express limitation under § 921(a)(20)), cert. denied, 507 U…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
George Olbert Hood v. United States
On the contrary, as we recently reiterated in Collins , the “fact that the order of discharge itself did not contain an express limitation on the right to possess firearms is not controlling.” Collins, 321 F.3d at 697 (quoting Wind, 986 F.2d at 1252 (Magill, J. & Hansen, J. concurring)); see also Davis v. United States, 972 F.2d 227, 230-31 (8th Cir.1992) (holding that defendant’s prior Nebraska felony conviction was properly counted for sentence enhancement purposes even if defendant’s certificate of discharge did not include the express limitation under § 921(a)(20)), cert. denied, …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Zimmerman v. State
See Wells v. Israel, 854 F.2d 995 (7th Cir.1988); Evans v. Deuth, 8 F.Supp.2d 1135 (N.D.Ind.1998); see also Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, Trigg v. Forbes, 507 U.S. 950 , 113 S.Ct. 1362 , 122 L.Ed.2d 741 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Norman Ray Woodall
See also Dockter, 58 F.3d at 1289-91 , where we assumed that other civil rights had been restored under North Dakota law but upheld the § 924(e) enhancement because the right to possess firearms had not, and Davis v. United States, 972 F.2d 227, 231 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 950 , 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 740 (1993), construing Nebraska law.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Norman Ray Woodall
See also Dockter, 58 F.3d at 1289-91 , where we assumed that other civil rights had been restored under North Dakota law but upheld the § 924(e) enhancement because the right to possess firearms had not, and Davis v. United States, 972 F.2d 227, 231 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 950 (1993), construing Nebraska law. -3- That leaves us with the question Woodall has not addressed -- whether Texas has substantially restored his “civil rights.” Texas has no statute that broadly restores civil rights upon discharge from prison.
Davis
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 92-6196.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 22, 1993.
Certiorari.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.