Moxley v. Bennett, Superintendent, Elmira Corr. Facility, 544 U.S. 925 (2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Moxley v. Bennett, Superintendent, Elmira Corr. Facility, 544 U.S. 925 (2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
50 citation events (50 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Farhan Awan v. State (texapp, 2018-03-15)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Farhan Awan v. State
Tex. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Elder v. State, 132 S.W.3d 20, 28 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (holding that erroneous admission of outcry testimony was harmless where it was the same or similar to testimony admitted through several other witnesses), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 925 (2005); Allen, 436 S.W.3d at 822 .
cited Cited "see" Hines v. State
Tex. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Elder v. State , 132 S.W.3d 20 , 26 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref'd), cert. denied , 544 U.S. 925 , 125 S.Ct. 1645 , 161 L.Ed.2d 484 (2005).
cited Cited "see" Richard D. Donaldson v. State
Tex. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
discussed Cited "see" Rangel v. State
Tex. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Elder v. State, 132 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 925 , 125 S.Ct. 1645 , 161 L.Ed.2d 484 (2005); see also Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S.Ct. at 2789 .
discussed Cited "see" Rangel v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Elder v. State, 132 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 925 , 125 S.Ct. 1645 , 161 L.Ed.2d 484 (2005); see also Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S.Ct. at 2789 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gerardo Trevizo v. State
Tex. App. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
In determining whether the translator was the declarant’s “agent” and was sufficiently reliable so as to function as a mere language conduit, we must resort to four factors: (1) “who supplied the interpreter[;]” (2) “whether the interpreter had any motive to mislead or distort[;]” (3) “the 9 interpreter’s qualifications and language skills[;]” and (4) “whether actions taken subsequent to the translated statement were consistent with the statement as translated.” Saavedra, 297 S.W.3d at 348 ; see also Cassidy v. State, 149 S.W.3d 712, 715-16 (Tex.App.--Austin 2004, pet. …
cited Cited "see, e.g." Lee v. State
Tex. App. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 22.021(a)(l)(B)(i); see also Elder v. State, 132 S.W.3d 20, 24 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref'd), cert. denied 544 U.S. 925 , 125 S.Ct. 1645 , 161 L.Ed.2d 484 (2005).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Moxley
v.
Bennett, Superintendent, Elmira Correctional Facility
04-8076.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 21, 2005.
544 U.S. 925
Published

544 U.S. 925

MOXLEY
v.
BENNETT, SUPERINTENDENT, ELMIRA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.

No. 04-8076.

Supreme Court of United States.

March 21, 2005.

1

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.