Pollack v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 538 U.S. 1005 (2003).

Pollack v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 538 U.S. 1005 (2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite

green Positive treatment 2.0 score

2 citation events across 1 distinct court.

Strongest positive: Hujazi v. Superior Court (cacd, 2012-06-07)

Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hujazi v. Superior Court

C.D. Cal. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low

See Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179 , 192 n. 5, 129 S.Ct. 823 , 172 L.Ed.2d 532 (2009) (“we have repeatedly held that it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 , 126 S.Ct. 602 , 163 L.Ed.2d 407 (2005) (“a state court’s interpretation of state law, including one announced on direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas corpus”); see also Holgerson v. Knowles, 309 F.3d 1200, 1202 (9th Cir.2002…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Boulware v. Marshall

C.D. Cal. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low

See Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 603 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) (state court’s construction of state law is “authoritative” on federal habeas review); see also Holgerson v. Knowles, 309 F.3d 1200, 1202 (9th Cir.2002), ce rt. denied, 538 U.S. 1005 , 123 S.Ct. 1915 , 155 L.Ed.2d 837 (2003) (habeas court “bound by California’s interpretation of its state law”; citation omitted); Oxborrow v. Eikenberry, 877 F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 942 , 110 S.Ct. 344 , 107 L.Ed.2d 332 (1989) (habeas court must defer to state court’s interpretation of state …