green
Positive treatment
Trending · 124 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 4×
12.1 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 2 distinct cases ·
"learning"
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Reckley v. Village Health Care Center
we examine cases construing claims under the ada, as well as section 504 of the rehabilitation act, because there is no significant difference in the analysis of rights and obligations created by the two acts.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Harris
juvenile adjudications need not be charged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt before they can be used in calculating a defendant's criminal history score under the ksga.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Andrew H.K. Wong v. Regents of the University of California
(2×)
learning
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Andrew H.K. Wong v. Regents of the University of California
(2×)
learning
discussed
Cited "see"
Montano v. Bonnie Brae Convalescent Hospital, Inc.
(2×)
See Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145 , 1152 n. 7 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 962 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003), (“We examine cases construing claims under the ADA, as well as section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, because there is no significant difference in the analysis of rights and obligations created by the two Acts.”). 68.
discussed
Cited "see"
Garza v. Thaler
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 237 (5th Cir.2002) (recognizing that, in evaluating the performance of trial counsel against a claim that said counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence, the relevant inquiry focuses on what counsel did to prepare for sentencing, what mitigating evidence counsel accumulated, what additional leads counsel had, and the results said counsel might reasonably have expected from those leads), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003); Gutierrez v. Dretke, 392 F.Supp.2d 802, 875-76 (W.D.Tex.2005) (recognizing the burden…
discussed
Cited "see"
Jasper v. Thaler
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 237 (5th Cir.2002) (recognizing that, in evaluating the performance of trial counsel against a claim that said counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence, the relevant inquiry focuses on what counsel did to prepare for sentencing, what mitigating evidence counsel accumulated, what additional leads counsel had, and the results said counsel might reasonably have expected from those leads), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bartee v. Quarterman
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 237 (5th Cir.2002) (recognizing *650 that, in evaluating the performance of trial counsel against a claim that said counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence, the relevant inquiry focuses on what counsel did to prepare for sentencing, what mitigating evidence counsel accumulated, what additional leads counsel had, and the results said counsel might reasonably have expected from those leads), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
Shelton v. King
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 235 (5th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Moore v. Quarterman
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 237 (5th Cir.2002)(recognizing that, in evaluating the performance of trial counsel against a claim that said counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence, the relevant inquiry focuses on what counsel did to prepare for sentencing, what mitigating evidence counsel accumulated, what additional leads counsel had, and the results said counsel might reasonably have expected from those leads), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Blanton v. Quarterman
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 236-40 (5th Cir.2002)(in evaluating the performance of trial counsel against a claim counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence, the relevant inquiry focuses on what counsel did to prepare for sentencing, what mitigating evidence counsel accumulated, what additional leads counsel had, and the results counsel might reasonably have expected from those leads), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003); Gutierrez v. Dretke, 392 F.Supp.2d 802, 875 (W.D.Tex.2005)(reeognizing the importance of interrogating the petitione…
cited
Cited "see"
Ontha v. Rutherford Cnty TN
See Phelps v. Coy, 286 F.3d 295, 301-02 (6th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 866 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Merrills
See State v. Hitt, 273 Kan. 224, 226 , 42 P.3d 732 (2002), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1104 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nichols v. Bell
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 241 (5th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003) (“In determining prejudice, we are thus required to compare the evidence actually presented at sentencing with all the mitigating evidence contained in the post-conviction record.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gutierrez v. Dretke
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230 (5th Cir. 2002) (recognizing in evaluating the performance of trial counsel against a claim counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence, the relevant inquiry focuses on what counsel did to prepare for sentencing, what mitigating evidence counsel accumulated, what additional leads counsel had, and the results said counsel might reasonably have expected from those leads), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Schaetzle v. Cockrell
See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 246 (5th Cir.2002) (en banc) (“It seems clear to us that a federal habeas court is authorized by [§] 2254(d) to review only a state court’s ‘decision,’ and not the written opinion explaining that decision.”), cer t. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Donovan Lamonte Haley v. Calif. Dept. of Rehab.
Cal. Sept. 26, 2018); see also Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 28 ] 1156 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 (2003) (plaintiff Case 2:22-cv-08126-SB-E Document 5 Filed 11/22/22 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:27 1 could not sue public official in his or her individual capacity under 2 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for ADA violations). 3 4 Plaintiff’s claim for alleged violation of California Civil Code 5 section 51 is also legally insufficient.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Acklin v. City of Inkster
With respect to Defendant Melendez, the Sixth Circuit has specifically noted that “ ‘there undoubtedly is a clearly established legal norm precluding the use of violent physical force against a criminal suspect who already has been subdued and does not present a danger to himself or others.’ ” Meirthew, 417 Fed.Appx. at 499 (quoting Harris v. City of Circleville, 583 F.3d 356, 367 (6th Cir.2009)); see also Phelps v. Coy, 286 F.3d 295, 302 (6th Cir.2002) (holding that a police officer’s tackling of a handcuffed suspect, hitting him in the face twice, and banging his head on the floor …
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Scaife
(3×)
As Scaife recognizes, we rejected this argument in State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44 , 41 P.3d 781 (2002); see also State v. Hitt, 273 Kan. 224, 234-36 , 42 P.3d 732 (2002), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 962 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003) (use of prior juvenile adjudications in criminal history score constitutional).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bultema v. Benzie County
See, e.g., Phelps v. Coy, 286 F.3d 295, 302 (6th Cir.2002) (holding that a police officer’s tackling of a handcuffed suspect, hitting him in the face twice, and banging his head on the floor three times, was unconstitutional), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 866 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003); McDowell, 863 F.2d at 1307 (holding that a blow from a nightstick to a handcuffed, unresisting suspect was constitutionally unreasonable).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Richard McGary v. City of Portland
(2×)
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12133 , 12134(b) & 12201(a); see also Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145 , 1152 n. 7 (9th Cir.2002) ("We examine cases construing claims under the ADA, as well as section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, because there is no significant difference in the analysis of rights and obligations created by the two Acts”), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 962 , 154 L.Ed.2d Ill (2003); Gorman, 152 F.3d at 913 (applying 28 C.F.R. § 42.540 to hold that the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirement applies to the transportation of arrestees). 8 .We afford the TA Manual substantia…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ronald Rompilla v. Martin Horn, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Martin Horn, Appellant/cross-Appellee
(2×)
See also Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 235 (5th Cir.2002) (“adjudication ‘on the merits’ is a term of art that refers to whether a court’s disposition of the case was substantive as opposed to procedural”), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 963 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hitt
v.
Kansas
v.
Kansas
01-10864.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 13, 2003.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
HITT
v.
KANSAS.
No. 01-10864.
Supreme Court of United States.
January 13, 2003.
1
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
2
Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 273 Kan. 224, 42 P. 3d 732.