green
Positive treatment
2.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hattie Tanner v. Joan Yukins
“Although we generally review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error, we review de novo when the district court’s decision in a habeas case is based on a transcript from the petitioner’s state court trial, and the district court thus makes no credibility determination or other apparent finding of fact.” Id. at 795-96 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Taylor v. Withrow, 288 F.3d 846, 850 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1007 , 123 S.Ct. 490 , 154 L.Ed.2d 406 (2002). *672 The de novo standard of review does not constrain our review of the district court’s …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fernando Lopez v. Julius Wilson, Warden
(2×)
Compare Taylor v. Withrow, 288 F.3d 846, 850 (6th Cir.2002) (noting that the AEDPA “sets a higher hurdle for those seeking habeas than before”), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1007 , 123 S.Ct. 490 , 154 L.Ed.2d 406 (2002), with McQueen v. Scroggy, 99 F.3d 1302, 1310 (6th Cir.1996) (pre-AEDPA case; stating that de novo standard of review applies to questions of federal constitutional law).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Normand
v.
Louisiana
v.
Louisiana
02-6188.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 4, 2002.
Published
NORMAND
v.
LOUISIANA.
No. 02-6188.
Supreme Court of United States.
November 4, 2002.
1
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT.
2
Ct. App. La., 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.