green
Positive treatment
10.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
SCHOFIELD v. NICHOLAS
See Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1493 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1230 (1994); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts Rule 6.
discussed
Cited "see"
James E. Hinkle v. State of Indiana
Moreover, consistent with our prior discovery jurisprudence, any PCR discovery order should be appropriately *665 narrow and limited. "[T]here is no post-conviction right to 'fish' through official files for belated grounds of attack on the judgment, or to confirm mere speculation or hope that a basis for collateral relief may exist." Gonzalez , supra , 275 Cal.Rptr. at 775 , 800 P.2d at 1205 ; see Deputy v. Taylor , 19 F.3d 1485 , 1493 (3d Cir.), cert. denied , 512 U.S. 1230 , 114 S.Ct. 2730 , 129 L.Ed. 2d 853 (1994) ; State v. Thomas , 236 Neb. 553 , 462 N.W.2d 862 , 867-68 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama
(2×)
See Hays v. Louisiana, 839 F.Supp. 1188 , 1190 (W.D.La.1993), vacated on other grounds by Louisiana *1285 v. Hays, 512 U.S. 1230 , 114 S.Ct. 2731 , 129 L.Ed.2d 853 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte State
The filing of a petition for PCR is not a license to obtain unlimited information from the State, but a means through which a defendant may demonstrate to a reviewing court that he was convicted or sentenced in violation of his rights. . . . "`Moreover, consistent with our prior discovery jurisprudence, any PCR discovery order should be appropriately narrow and limited. "[T]here is no postconviction right to `fish' through official files for belated grounds of attack on the judgment, or to confirm mere speculation or hope that a basis for collateral relief may exist." Gonzalez, supra, 275 Cal.…
discussed
Cited "see"
Hall v. State
The filing of a petition for PCR is not a license to obtain unlimited information from the State, but a means through which a defendant may demonstrate to a reviewing court that he was convicted or sentenced in violation of his rights. . . . "`Moreover, consistent with our prior discovery jurisprudence, any PCR discovery order should be appropriately narrow and limited. "[T]here is no postconviction right to `fish' through official files for belated grounds of attack on the judgment, or to confirm mere speculation or hope that a basis for collateral relief may exist." Gonzalez, supra, 275 Cal.…
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Perkins
Moreover, we note that PCR "is not a device for investigating possible claims, but a means for vindicating actual claims." People v. Gonzalez , 51 Cal.3d 1179 , 275 Cal.Rptr. 729 , 776 , 800 P.2d 1159 , 1206 (1990), cert. denied , 502 U.S. 835 , 112 S.Ct. 117 , 116 L.Ed.2d 85 (1991). *Page 603 The filing of a petition for PCR is not a license to obtain unlimited information from the State, but a means through which a defendant may demonstrate to a reviewing court that he was convicted or sentenced in violation of his rights. . . . "`Moreover, consistent with our prior discovery jurisprudence, …
discussed
Cited "see"
Jackson v. State
“Moreover, consistent with our prior discovery jurisprudence, any PCR discovery order should be appropriately narrow and limited. ‘[TJhere is no post-conviction right to “fish” through official files for belated grounds of attack on the judgment, or to confirm mere speculation or hope that a basis for collateral relief may exist.’ Gonzalez, supra, 275 Cal.Rptr. at 775 , 800 P.2d at 1205 ; see Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1493 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1230 , 114 S.Ct. 2730 , 129 L.Ed.2d 853 (1994); State v. Thomas, 236 Neb. 553 , 462 N.W.2d 862, 867-68 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Illera Plaza
See Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1500-02 (3d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1230 , 114 S.Ct. 2730 , 129 L.Ed.2d 853 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert Glen Coe, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Ricky Bell, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee
(2×)
See Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1497-98, 1500-02 (3d Cir.) (allowing double counting of felony-murder factor), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1230 , 114 S.Ct. 2730 , 129 L.Ed.2d 853 (1994); Johnson v. Dugger, 932 F.2d 1360 (11th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 961 , 112 S.Ct. 427 , 116 L.Ed.2d 446 (1991); Perry v. Lockhart, 871 F.2d 1384, 1393 (8th Cir.) (allowing double-counting of felony-murder factor, and holding that Lowenfield overruled contrary holding in Collins v. Lockhart, 754 F.2d 258 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1013 , 106 S.Ct. 546 , 88 L.Ed.2d 475 (1985)), cert. denied, 493…
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Land
"Moreover, consistent with our prior discovery jurisprudence, any PCR discovery order should be appropriately narrow and limited. '[T]here is no postconviction right to "fish" through official files for belated grounds of attack on the judgment, or to confirm mere speculation or hope that a basis for collateral relief may exist.' Gonzalez, supra, 275 Cal. Rptr. at 775 , 800 P.2d at 1205 ; see Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485 , 1493 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1230 , 114 S.Ct. 2730 , 129 L.Ed.2d 853 (1994); State v. Thomas, 236 Neb. 553 , 462 N.W.2d 862 , 867-68 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Roche v. State
Moreover, consistent with our prior discovery jurisprudence, any PCR discovery order should be appropriately narrow and limited. “[T]here is no postconviction right to ‘fish’ through official files for belated grounds of attack on the judgment, or to confirm mere speculation or hope that a basis for collateral relief may exist.” Gonzalez, supra, 275 Cal.Rptr. at 775 , 800 P.2d at 1205 ; see Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1493 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1230 , 114 S.Ct. 2730 , 129 L.Ed.2d 853 (1994); State v. Thomas, 236 Neb. 553 , 462 N.W.2d 862, 867-68 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harries v. State
See Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1496 (3d Cir.), cert. denied 512 U.S. 1230 , 114 S.Ct. 2730 , 129 L.Ed.2d 853 (1994) (finding that state court’s conclusion of harmlessness is a mixed question of law and fact, not entitled to a presumption of correctness); Suniga v. Bunnell, 998 F.2d 664, 667 (9th Cir.1993) (determination by state appellate court that instructional error was harmless is mixed question of law and fact to be reviewed de novo).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harries v. State
See Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1496 (3d Cir.), cert. denied 512 U.S. 1230 , 114 S.Ct. 2730 , 129 L.Ed.2d 853 (1994) (finding that state court’s conclusion of harmlessness is a mixed question of law and fact, not entitled to a presumption of correctness); Suniga v. Bunnell, 998 F.2d 664, 667 (9th Cir. 1993) (determination by state appellate court that instructional error was harmless is mixed question of law and fact to be reviewed de novo).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Marshall
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. D.R.H., 127 N.J. 249, 256 , 604 A.2d 89 (1992); State v. R.W., 104 N.J. 14, 28 , 514 A.2d 1287 (1986). “[T]here is no postconviction right to ‘fish’ through official files for belated grounds of attack on the judgment, or to confirm mere speculation or hope that a basis for collateral relief may exist.” Gonzalez, supra, 275 Cal.Rptr. at 775, 800 P.2d at 1205 ; see Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1493 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1230 , 114 S.Ct. 2730 , 129 L.Ed.2d 853 (1994); State v. Thomas, 236 Neb. 553 , 462 N.W.2d 862, 867-68 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner
See, e.g., Hays v. Louisiana, 839 F.Supp. 1188 , 1205 n. 54 (W.D.La.1993) (“Testimony at the trial revealed that [the redistricting- plan] was passed by a legislative alliance between the Black and the Republican Caucuses, historically uncommon bedfellows but,', according to expert testimony, á phenomenon occurring with increasing frequency across the country.”), vacated, 512 U.S. 1230 , 114 S.Ct. 2731 , 129 L.Ed.2d 853 (1994).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Marshall v. Hendricks
See, e.g., Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1491 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1230 , 114 S.Ct. 2730 , 129 L.Ed.2d 853 (1994).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Marshall v. Hendricks
See, e.g., Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1491 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1230 , 114 S.Ct. 2730 , 129 L.Ed.2d 853 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gordon
Legal Discussion A. Standard of Review When considering a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we are bound by the two-pronged test that the Supreme Court formulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (i) whether the attorney’s performance fell “below an objective standard of reasonableness”, thus rendering the assistance so deficient that the attorney did not function as “counsel” as the Sixth Amendment guarantees, see id., at 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064-65 , and (ii) whether the attorney’s ineffectiveness prejudiced the defens…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
National Interfaith Cable Coalition, Inc., Operating as the Vision Interfaith Satellite Network
v.
Federal Communications Commission
v.
Federal Communications Commission
No. 93-45.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 27, 1994.
512 U.S. 1230
Published
Appeal from D. C. D. C. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, ante, p. 622.