green
Positive treatment
7.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Selsor v. Workman
“The Ex Post Facto Clause, by its own terms, does not apply to courts.” Rogers, 532 U.S. at 460, 121 S.Ct. 1693 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Foster v. Quarterman
First, such deference is mandated both for questions of law and for mixed questions of law and fact, unless the state court’s “decision ... was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); see Hill v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 481, 488 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1039 , 121 S.Ct. 2001 , 149 L.Ed.2d 1004 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Henderson v. Quarterman
Under AEDPA, for deciding a claim, a federal court must defer to the state court’s resolution of that claim concerning questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact, unless that “decision ... was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court”. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); see Hill v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 481, 488 (5th Cir. 2000), cert, denied, 532 U.S. 1039 , 121 S.Ct. 2001 , 149 L.Ed.2d 1004 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Baker Ex Rel. Baker v. Saint Francis Hospital
(2×)
See Fairchild v. State, 1999 OK CR 49, ¶¶ 23-57 , 998 P.2d 611, 618-624 , cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1039 , 121 S.Ct. 2002 (2001)(interpreting 21 O.S. 1991 , § 701.7(C) — First Degree Murder of a Child statute — which included the acts contained in 21 O.S. 1991, § 843, § 843 being later amended and incorporated in § 7115).
discussed
Cited "see"
Miller v. Dretke
(2×)
Generally, a district court is required by AEDPA to defer to the state court’s: (1) adjudication of claims on questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact, unless the state court’s “decision ... was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court ....” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); see Hill v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 481, 488 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1039 , 121 S.Ct. 2001 , 149 L.Ed.2d 1004 (2001); and (2) factual findings unless they “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determi…
discussed
Cited "see"
Miller v. Dretke
For purposes of the requisite threshold-inquiry, we are mindful that, in ruling on the merits, the district court was required to defer to the state court’s adjudication of Miller’s claims on both questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact, unless the state court’s “decision ... was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court”. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); see Hill v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 481, 488 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1039 , 121 S.Ct. 2001 , 149 L.Ed.2d 1004 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Garrison v. State
See Fairchild v. State, 1999 OK CR 49, ¶ 68 , 998 P.2d 611, 625-26 (distinguishing the case from others where "the post-autopsy photographs showed the irrelevant crudely stitched Y-incision on the exterior of the body in addition to the relevant wound caused by the murderer"), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1039 , 121 S.Ct. 2002 , 149 L.Ed.2d 1004 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Reed v. Cockrell
(2×)
See Hill v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 481, 485 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1039 , 121 S.Ct. 2001 , 149 L.Ed.2d 1004 (2001); Valdez v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Siegelman
See, e.g., United States v. Dominguez, 226 F.3d 1235, 1248 (11th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1039 , 121 S.Ct. 2001 , 149 L.Ed.2d 1003 (2001); Cuthel, 903 F.2d at 1383 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Everett v. Beard
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Hannibal, 562 Pa. 132 , 753 A.2d 1265, 1269-70 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1039 , 121 S.Ct. 2002 , 149 L.Ed.2d 1004 (2001) (assessing jury instructions regarding accomplice liability for first-degree murder "as a whole"). 68 There can be no dispute that the propriety of jury instructions is to be determined by assessing the entire set of instructions.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Everett v. Beard
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Hannibal, 562 Pa. 132 , 753 A.2d 1265, 1269-70 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1039 , 121 S.Ct. 2002 , 149 L.Ed.2d 1004 (2001) (assessing jury instructions regarding accomplice liability for first-degree murder “as a whole”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
McCarty v. State
See, e.g., Fairchild v. State, 1999 OK CR 49 , 998 P.2d 611 , cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1039 , 121 S.Ct. 2002 , 149 L.Ed.2d 1004 (2001) (first degree child abuse murder is general intent crime).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Clay
v.
Dormire, Superintendent, Jefferson City Correctional Center
v.
Dormire, Superintendent, Jefferson City Correctional Center
No. 00-1542.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 21, 2001.
532 U.S. 1039
Published
Sup. Ct. Mo. Certio-rari denied.