green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1998 ·
…to show premeditation, the state must prove that the defendant acted with either the intent or knowledge that he would kill his victim and that such intent or knowledge preceded the killing by a length of time permitting reflection.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Ramirez
(2×)
to show premeditation, the state must prove that the defendant acted with either the intent or knowledge that he would kill his victim and that such intent or knowledge preceded the killing by a length of time permitting reflection.
discussed
Cited "see"
Jong E. Lee v. Ernst & Young, LLP
(2×)
See Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545, 1551 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 874 , 117 S.Ct. 193 , 136 L.Ed.2d 130 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lee v. Ernst & Young, LLP
(2×)
See Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545 , 1551 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 874 , 117 S.Ct. 193 , 136 L.Ed.2d 130 (1996).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Billie Jerome Allen, United States of America v. Norris G. Holder
(3×)
See Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545 , 1552 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 874 (1996). 8 a.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Billie Jerome Allen
See Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545 , 1552 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 874 (1996). a.
cited
Cited "see"
Lenzy McCullough v. Ronald Dobbs
See Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545 , 1550-51 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 874 (1996); Iron Eyes v. Henry, 907 F.2d 810, 814-16 (8th Cir. 1990).
cited
Cited "see"
Christopher Laughlin v. Larry B. Norris
See Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545 , 1550-51 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 874 (1996); Iron Eyes v. Henry, 907 F.2d 810, 814-16 (8th Cir. 1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Young
Congress intended RFRA to apply "to all Federal and State law." 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-3(a); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(1) (defining "government" to include "a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State"). 10 Whether Congress has the authority to impose RFRA on state law was soon questioned, see, e.g., Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545 , 1570 (8th Cir.) (McMillian, J., dissenting) ("Because Congress does not have the power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact RFRA, …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rogers
v.
White, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh
v.
White, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh
No. 96-5010.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1996.
Cited by 33 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Arizona (2)
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.