green
Positive treatment
Issue: state of mind exceptionCT ↗
Issue: Roberts testVA ↗
Issue: state of mind exceptionLA ↗
Issue: firmly rooted hearsay exceptionLA ↗
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.2 score
“the jury's role as the finder of fact does not entitle it to return a verdict based only on confusion, speculation or prejudice-”
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Singh v. City of New York
the jury's role as the finder of fact does not entitle it to return a verdict based only on confusion, speculation or prejudice-
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Kaufman
unless the witness's hearsay statements qualify as testimonial,' crawford is inapplicable and roberts continues to apply.
discussed
Cited "see"
Felder v. Dickhaut
See Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 82 (1st Cir.2004) (“In some circumstances, defense counsel’s interest in protecting the accused’s right to a completely public trial may give way to other concerns, such as maximizing the accused’s chance for obtaining a favorable jury composition.”) cer t. denied, 543 U.S. 1093 , 125 S.Ct. 971 , 160 L.Ed.2d 905 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nails v. LaPlante
See Hernandez v. Keane, 341 F.3d 137, 146-47 (2d Cir.2003) (summary judgment appropriate where deliberate indifference claim relied on delay in providing risky treatment), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1093 , 125 S.Ct. 971 , 160 L.Ed.2d 905 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Furr v. Brady
The “contrary to” criterion is not satisfied unless the state court “arrive[d] at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the United States Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decide[d] a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); see Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 80 (1st Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1093 , 125 S.Ct. 971 , 160 L.Ed.2d 905 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sloane v. Borawski
“The subjective element of deliberate indifference ‘entails something more than mere negligence ... [but] something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.’ ” Hathaway, 99 F.3d at 553 , citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); see also Hernandez v. Keane, 341 F.3d 137, 144 (2d Cir.2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1093 , 125 S.Ct. 971 , 160 L.Ed.2d 905 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cox v. State
See also Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 84 (1st Cir.2004) (“statements ... made during a private conversation” are nontestimonial), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1093 , 125 S.Ct. 971 , 160 L.Ed.2d 905 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sleeper v. Spencer
STANDARD OF REVIEW Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a state prisoner is entitled to relief where a state court adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); see also Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 80 (1st Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1093 , 125 S.Ct. 971 , 160 L.Ed.2d 905 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Locicero v. O'CONNELL
On the one hand, “a defendant in a § 1983 action may not be held liable for damages for constitutional violations merely because he held a high position of authority.” Black v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 72, 74 (2d Cir.1996); see also Hernandez v. Keane, 341 F.3d 137, 144 (2d Cir.2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1093 , 125 S.Ct. 971 , 160 L.Ed.2d 905 (2005).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Carpenter
See, e.g., Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 85 (1st Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1093 , 125 S. Ct. 971 , 160 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth
(2×)
Most jurisdictions are leaning toward the idea that "Crawford [left] the Roberts approach untouched with respect to nontestimonial statements.” United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir.2004); see also Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 84 (1st Cir.2004) ("Thus, unless [witness’s hearsay] statements qualify as 'testimonial,' Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts continues to apply.”) [, cert. denied,-U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 971 , 160 L.Ed.2d 905 (2005)]; State v. Manuel, 275 Wis.2d 146 , 2004 WI App 111 , 685 N.W.2d 525, 533 (Wis.Ct.App.2004), review granted, 2004 WI 138 , 276 Wis.2d 26 , 689…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Smith
See, e.g., Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 85 (1st Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1093 , 125 S. Ct. 971 , 160 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
McGonagle v. United States
See, e.g., Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 81-83 (1st Cir.2004) (rejecting similar claim), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 971 , 160 L.Ed.2d 905 (2005). 5.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Worley
v.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
v.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
04-7301.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 18, 2005.
543 U.S. 1093
2005 U.S. LEXIS 703
Cited by 29 opinions | Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (1) · West Virginia Supreme Court (1)
WORLEY
v.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.
No. 04-7301.
Supreme Court of United States.
January 18, 2005.
1
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 91 Fed. Appx. 270.