green
Positive treatment
9.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Dwight Taylor v. Carmen Palmer
See Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940, 942 (6th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 947, 121 S.Ct. 1415 , 149 L.Ed.2d 356 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Garner v. Mitchell
See Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940, 943 (6th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 947 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Garner v. Mitchell
(2×)
See Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940, 943 (6th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 947 , 121 S.Ct. 1415 , 149 L.Ed.2d 356 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Demetrius McClendon v. Terry Sherman, Warden
See Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940, 942 (6th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 947 , 121 S.Ct. 1415 , 149 L.Ed.2d 356 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Sandra Maxwell Griffin v. Shirley A. Rogers, Warden
See Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940 , 942 *651 (6th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 947 , 121 S.Ct. 1415 , 149 L.Ed.2d 356 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Michael Lee Fullwood v. R.C. Lee, Warden of Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina
(2×)
See Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940 , 943 n. 1 (6th Cir.2000) (“Where a state court decides a constitutional issue by form order or without extended discussion, a habeas court should then focus on the result of the state court’s decision, applying the standard articulated” by the AEDPA), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 947 , 121 S.Ct. 1415 , 149 L.Ed.2d 356 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Davis v. Brigano
See Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940, 941 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 947 , 121 S.Ct. 1415 , 149 L.Ed.2d 356 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Gravitt v. Tyszkiewicz
See Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940, 941 (6th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 947 , 121 S.Ct. 1415 , 149 L.Ed.2d 356 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Franklin v. Bagley
See Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940, 941 (6th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 947 , 121 S.Ct. 1415 , 149 L.Ed.2d 356 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Owens v. Stine
See Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940, 941 (6th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 947 , 121 S.Ct. 1415 , 149 L.Ed.2d 356 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Scott Brundage v. James Craig, Warden
ECF No. | at PagelID #: 128; see Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding that the date the prisoner signs the document is deemed under Sixth Circuit law to be the date of handing to officials) (citing Goins v. Saunders, 206 Fed.Appx. 497 , 498 n. 1 (6th Cir. 2006) (per curiam)). (5:22CV2086) (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jones v. Bradley
Law & Analysis Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a writ of habeas corpus may not be granted unless the state court proceedings: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1)-(2); see also Harri…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Davis v. Sloan
Law & Analysis Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a writ of habeas corpus may not be granted unless the state court proceedings: “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1)-(2); see also…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Adams v. Clipper
ECF No. 11 at PageID #: 1075. * The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct de novo review only of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which an objection has been properly made. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). (5:17CV2579) application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1)-(2); see also Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940, 942 (6th Cir.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jamie v. Bracy
Law & Analysis Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a writ of habeas corpus may not be granted unless the state court proceedings: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)C1)-(2); see also Harri…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ramsey v. LaRose
Law & Analysis Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a writ of habeas corpus may not be granted unless the state court proceedings: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1)-(2); see also Harri…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wilson v. Bracy
Law & Analysis Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a writ of habeas corpus may not be granted unless the state court proceedings: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1)-(2); see also Harri…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sutton v. Bell
See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (O’Connor, J., delivering the opinion of the Court as to Part II and concurring as to Parts I and III-V); see also Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 947 , 121 S.Ct. 1415 , 149 L.Ed.2d 356 (2001) (construing Williams).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nichols v. Bell
See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (O’Con-nor, J., delivering the opinion of the Court as to Part II and concurring as to Parts I and III-V); see also Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 947 , 121 S.Ct. 1415 , 149 L.Ed.2d 356 (2001) (construing Williams).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Syvertson
v.
Malaktaris
v.
Malaktaris
No. 00-8162.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 26, 2001.
Published
Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied.