green
Positive treatment
4.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Jamison
That case is inapposite, as it was based on the fact that the forms at issue did “not explain or even mention the severe immigration consequences that will ordinarily result if the alien fails to request a hearing — specifically, the high probability that the alien will be deported immediately.” Id. at 1038.
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Welding Fume Products Liability Litigation
O'Connor v. Boeing North American, Inc., 197 F.R.D. 404, 411-12 (C.D.Cal.2000) (rejecting the assertion that “Rule 23(b)(2) has an implicit ‘cohesiveness' requirement that is similar, if not more stringent, than the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3)”); see Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1003 , 119 S.Ct. 1140 , 143 L.Ed.2d 208 (1999) (stating, in a civil rights case: "We note that with respect to 23(b)(2) in particular, the government’s dogged focus on the factual differences among the class members appears to demonstrate a fundamenta…
cited
Cited "see"
Sharp v. Weston
See Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1003 , 119 S.Ct. 1140 , 143 L.Ed.2d 208 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Smaxwell
See Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1041 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1003 (1999) (holding that aliens' due process right to meaningful notice was violated where waiver forms were "so bureaucratic and cumbersome and in some respects so uninformative and in others so misleading that even those . . . with a reasonable command of the English language would *235 not receive adequate notice from them"); see generally Joseph Kimble, Answering the Critics of Plain Language, 5 Scribes J.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Billie Jerome Allen, United States of America v. Norris G. Holder
(2×)
See also United States v. Williams, 136 F.3d 547, 552-53 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding admissible suspect's statement to police after being informed that he had been identified in a lineup, which the court assumed without deciding was interrogation for purposes of the appeal, because the statements were voluntarily made without any coercion and came after the suspect was given and validly waived his Miranda rights), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1003 (1999). 42 Finally, the fact that officers did not find counsel for Allen immediately after his request does not automatically result in a violation of his r…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Billie Jerome Allen
See also United States v. Williams, 136 F.3d 547, 552-53 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding admissible suspect's statement to police after being informed that he had been identified in a lineup, which the court assumed without deciding was interrogation for purposes of the appeal, because the statements 19 were voluntarily made without any coercion and came after the suspect was given and validly waived his Miranda rights), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1003 (1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cross
v.
Pelican Bay State Prison Cross v. Cambra, Warden Cross v. Pelican Bay State Prison Cross v. Pelican Bay State Prison
v.
Pelican Bay State Prison Cross v. Cambra, Warden Cross v. Pelican Bay State Prison Cross v. Pelican Bay State Prison
No. 98-7547; No. 98-7548; No. 98-7550; No. 98-7551.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 8, 1999.
526 U.S. 1003
Published
C. A. 9th Cir.;
C. A. 9th Cir.;
C. A. 9th Cir.; and
C. A. 9th Cir. Motions of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Petitioner is allowed until March 29, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.