Perry v. United States, 541 U.S. 1039 (2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Perry v. United States, 541 U.S. 1039 (2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Tull (arizctapp, 2017-07-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Tull
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Prasertphong, 206 Ariz. 70, 92, ¶ 92 (2003) (“This court has generally approved the use of dual juries, recognizing that trial judges have broad discretion to employ particular trial techniques to meet a specific problem in a single case.”), judgment vacated on other grounds by Prasertphong v. Arizona, 541 U.S. 1039 (2004). 4 STATE v. TULL Decision of the Court Mucthison.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Silva
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Prasertphong, 206 Ariz. 70, 90, ¶ 81 (2003) (“We 12 STATE v. SILVA Decision of the Court have encouraged trial courts to closely follow statutory language when instructing on felony murder.”), vacated on other grounds by, 541 U.S. 1039 (2004); see also State v. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536, 546 (1997) (explaining a trial court need not provide a proximate cause instruction when the given instructions “instruct the jury on the elements of the crime, including causation,” and, in their entirely, adequately reflect the law). ¶38 Silva’s proposed instruction, on the other hand, sta…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Brown
Pa. · 2012 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Prasertphong, 206 Ariz. 70 , 75 P.3d 675, 686-687 (2003), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 541 U.S. 1039 , 124 S.Ct. 2165 , 158 L.Ed.2d 727 (2004); Smith v. State, 647 A.2d 1083, 1088 (Del.1994); Franqui v. State, 699 So.2d 1312, 1320 (Fla.1997); State v. Averett, 142 Idaho 879 , 136 P.3d 350, 361 (App.2006); State v. Lucky, 755 So.2d 845, 857 (La.1999); State v. Matusky, 343 Md. 467 , 682 A.2d 694, 705 (1996); State v. Ford, 539 N.W.2d 214, 227 (Minn.1995); Williams v. State, 667 So.2d 15, 19 (Miss.1996), overruled on other grounds, Smith v. State, 986 So.2d 290 (Mis…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Perry
v.
United States
03-9728.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 17, 2004.
541 U.S. 1039
Published

C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Stevens dissents. See id., at 4, and cases cited therein.