green
Positive treatment
3.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
McCambridge v. Hall
See Ortiz v. Dubois, 19 F.3d 708, 714 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1085 , 115 S.Ct. 739 , 130 L.Ed.2d 641 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Michaels v. New Jersey
See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 20 F.3d 789, 794-95 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1085 , 115 S.Ct. 740 , 130 L.Ed.2d 642 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Flores v. Johnson
See Wilkerson v. Whitley, 16 F.3d 64, 68 (5th Cir.1994), modified on other grounds, 28 F.3d 498 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1085 , 115 S.Ct. 740 , 130' L.Ed.2d 642 (1995); Green v. Lynaugh, 868 F.2d 176, 177 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 831 , 110 S.Ct. 102 , 107 L.Ed.2d 66 (1989); see also Williams v. Scott, 35 F.3d 159, 164 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 959 , 130 L.Ed.2d 901 (1995) (holding that trial counsel’s advice to a defendant to plead guilty to a capital murder charge did not prejudice the defendant where the evidence of the defendant’s guilt wa…
discussed
Cited "see"
Eye v. Fluor Corp.
See Fleming v. United States Postal Service AMF O'Hare, 27 F.3d 259, 260-61 (7th Cir.1994) (holding that settlement was final under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, §§ 501 et seq., 29 U.S.C. §§ 791 et seq., in the absence of a tender back of consideration received), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1085 , 115 S.Ct. 741 , 130 L.Ed.2d 642 (1995).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Sean Conklin
See, e.g., Hamilton v. Groose, 28 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1085 , 115 S.Ct. 741 , 130 L.Ed.2d 643 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Poole v. State
See also Wilkerson v. Whitley, 28 F.3d 498, 503 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1085 , 115 S.Ct. 740 , 130 L.Ed.2d 642 (1995) ("[The Fifth Amendment] does not prevent states from instituting prosecutions without an indictment, and the Supreme Court has concluded that neither the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment nor the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the States to afford the accused the right to grand jury review before trial," quoting Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 534 , 4 S.Ct. 111 , 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In re B. M.
See also Richardson v. State, 879 S.W.2d 874, 879 (Tex.Cr.App.1993), cer t. denied, 513 U.S. 1085 , 115 S.Ct. 741 , 130 L.Ed.2d 643 (1995).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re BM
See also Richardson v. State, 879 S.W.2d 874, 879 (Tex. Cr.App.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1085 , 115 S.Ct. 741 , 130 L.Ed.2d 643 (1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sutherland
v.
Louisiana
v.
Louisiana
No. 94-6015.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 9, 1995.
Published
Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.