green
Positive treatment
8.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Christ
See State v. Compton, 333 Or 274, 285 , 39 P3d 833 , cert den, 537 US 841 (2002) (the test under ORCP 57 D(1)(g) “is whether the prospective juror’s ideas or opinions would impair substantially his or her performance of the duties of a juror to decide the case fairly and impartially on the evidence presented in court”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Christ
See State v. Compton, 333 Or 274, 285 , 39 P3d 833 , cert den, 537 US 841 (2002) (the test under ORCP 57 D(1)(g) “is whether the prospective juror’s ideas or opinions would impair substantially his or her performance of the duties of a juror to decide the case fairly and impartially on the evidence presented in court”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Board of County Commissioners v. Bremby
(2×)
See McCormick v. Board of Shawnee County Comm’rs, 272 Kan. 627, 634 , 35 P.3d 815 (2001), cert. denied 537 U.S. 841 (2002). (1) Standing Under the KJRA The KJRA recognizes four categories of persons who have standing to seek judicial review of an agency action, as set forth in K.S.A. 77-611: “(a) A person to whom the agency action is specifically directed; “(b) a person who was a party to the agency proceedings that led to the agency action; “(c) if the challenged agency action is a rule and regulation, a person subject to that rule; or “(d) a person eligible for standing under anoth…
discussed
Cited "see"
BOARD OF COM'RS OF SUMNER COUNTY v. Bremby
(2×)
See McCormick v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 272 Kan. 627, 634 , 35 P.3d 815 (2001), cert. denied 537 U.S. 841 , 123 S.Ct. 170 , 154 L.Ed.2d 65 (2002). (1) STANDING UNDER THE KJRA The KJRA recognizes four categories of persons who have standing to seek judicial review of an agency action, as set forth in K.S.A. 77-611: "(a) A person to whom the agency action is specifically directed; "(b) a person who was a party to the agency proceedings that led to the agency action; "(c) if the challenged agency action is a rule and regulation, a person subject to that rule; or "(d) a person eligible f…
discussed
Cited "see"
Moss v. Mamalis
See McCormick v. Board of Shawnee County Comm’rs, 272 Kan. 627, 642 , 35 P.3d 815 (2001), cert. denied 537 U.S. 841 (2002) (applying the two-part test for qualified immunity taken from Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201-02, 150 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Laubach v. Roberts
See McCormick v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 272 Kan. 627, 634 , 35 P.3d 815 (2001), cert. denied 537 U.S. 841 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Bridgeforth v. Ward
See McCracken v. Gibson, 268 F.3d 970, 981 (10th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 841 , 123 S.Ct. 165 , 154 L.Ed.2d 64 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Chitwood
Ultimately, an appellate court is required to decide “whether, under the circumstances as a whole, defendant was denied the right to a fair trial, as a matter of law, by the events that transpired at trial.” Davis, 345 Or at 583 ; see also State v. Compton, 333 Or 274, 293 , 39 P3d 833 (2002), cert den, 537 US 841 (2002) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Slaughter v. Mullin
See Hooker, 293 F.3d at 1243 n. 11; Romano, 239 F.3d at 1176, 1177 ; see also McCracken v. Gibson, 268 F.3d 970, 982 (10th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 841 , 123 S.Ct. 165 , 154 L.Ed.2d 64 (2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Smith
v.
Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
v.
Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
01-10297.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 2002.
537 U.S. 841
Published
SMITH
v.
MOORE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.
No. 01-10297.
Supreme Court of United States.
October 7, 2002.
1
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT.
2
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.