green
Positive treatment
4.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith v. Fischer
If the state court’s reasoning were to be construed as a merits analysis, “when a state court fails to articulate the rationale underlying its rejection of a petitioner’s claim, and when that rejection is on the merits, the federal court will focus its review on whether the state court’s ultimate decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent.” Eze v. Senkowski 321 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir.2003) (internal citations omitted); accord Aeid v. Bennett, 296 F.3d 58, 62 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 537 U.S. 1093 , 123 S.Ct. 694 , 154 L.Ed.2d 641 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Durbin v. Province
See Bullock v. Carver, 297 F.3d 1036, 1044, 1046 (10th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1093 , 123 S.Ct. 703 , 154 L.Ed.2d 640 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. King
See Bullock v. Carver, 297 F.3d 1036, 1057 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1093 , 123 S.Ct. 703 , 154 L.Ed.2d 640 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mora v. Williams
See Bullock v. Carver, 297 F.3d 1036, 1048 (10th Cir.) (“an attorney’s unawareness of relevant law at the time he made the challenged decision does not, in and of itself, render the attorney’s performance constitutionally deficient”), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1093 , 123 S.Ct. 703 , 154 L.Ed.2d 640 (2002); Hawkins v. Hannigan, 185 F.3d 1146, 1154-55 (10th Cir.1999) (even assuming counsel was mistaken as to the scope of the stipulation, the decision to enter the stipulation was a reasonable trial decision).
discussed
Cited "see"
Slaughter v. Mullin
See id. at 697 . “[T]he overriding question under the [performance] prong of Strickland is whether, under all the circumstances, counsel performed in an objectively unreasonable manner.” Bullock v. Carver, 297 F.3d 1036, 1046 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1093 , 123 S.Ct. 703 , 154 L.Ed.2d 640 (2002); see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 690 . “[W]e always start th[at] analysis [by presuming] that an attorney acted in an objectively reasonable manner and that an attorney’s challenged conduct might have been part of a sound trial strategy.” Bullock, 297 F.3d at 1046 ; see also …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Spears v. Mullin
(2×)
When, as here, habeas petitioners challenge the admission of photographic evidence as violative of the Constitution, this court considers “whether the admission of evidence ... so infected the sentencing proceeding with unfairness as to render the jury’s imposition of the death penalty a denial of due process.” Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U.S. 1, 12 , 114 S.Ct. 2004 , 129 L.Ed.2d 1 (1994); see also Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 131 n. 6, 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) (“An important element of a fair trial is that a jury consider only relevant and competent evidence bearin…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Metoyer v. Scott
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also Bullock *529 v. Carver, 297 F.3d 1036, 1046 (10th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1093 , 123 S.Ct. 703 , 154 L.Ed.2d 640 (2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bullock
v.
Carver, Warden
v.
Carver, Warden
02-7110.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 16, 2002.
Published
BULLOCK
v.
CARVER, WARDEN.
No. 02-7110.
Supreme Court of United States.
December 16, 2002.
1
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT.
2
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 297 F. 3d 1036.