green
Positive treatment
Issue: mental retardation claimTX ↗
Issue: fair evidentiary hearingTX ↗
Issue: Briseno factorsTX ↗
Quoted verbatim 2×
46.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 ·
…a defendant, asserting a mental retardation claim in a death penalty case, is entitled to the process of a 'full and fair hearing' to establish this claim.
at p. 371
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Miller v. Hooper
state credibility determinations also receive aedpa deference on habeas review, but not when overcome by clear and convincing evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rylee Carl Eklund v. Lorie Davis
“In determining whether to grant a hearing, under Rule 8(a) of the Habeas Court Rules ‘the judge must review the answer [and] any transcripts and records of state-court proceedings . . . to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.’” Richards, 566 F.3d at 562 -63 (quoting Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 2008)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Agyin v. Lumpkin
“In determining whether to grant a hearing, under Rule 8(a) of the Habeas Court Rules ‘the judge must review the answer [and] any transcripts and records of state-court proceedings . . . to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.’” Richards, 566 F.3d at 562 -63 (quoting Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 2008)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Agyin v. Lumpkin
“In determining whether to grant a hearing, under Rule 8(a) of the Habeas Court Rules ‘the judge must review the answer [and] any transcripts and records of state-court proceedings . . . to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.’” Richards, 566 F.3d at 562 -63 (quoting Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 2008)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph Garcia v. Lorie Davis, Director
Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 367 (5th Cir. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Perry Austin v. Lorie Davis, Director
Cf. Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 371-72 (5th Cir.2008) (per curiam). 21 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amaya, Reynaldo
Hall v. Quan‘erman, 534 F.3d 365, 367-69 (5`h Cir. 2008); Applicant is entitled an evidentiary hearing because he diligently sought to develop the factual basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a state court.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John Wayne Conner v. GDCP Warden
Cf. Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 371 (5th Cir.2008) (“The issue of [intellectual disability], defined by Atkins [,] ... is fact-intensive and rests on nuanced determinations under broadly stated concepts such as limitations in adaptive functioning.” (quotation marks omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Garza, Joel
Applicant would argue, he is entitled to an. evidentiary hearing because the State did not provide full and fair hearing at which to develope facts, see Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 367-369 (5th Cir.2008)-(where court held petitioner was entitled to evidentiary hearing because the State did not pro vide a full and fair hearing at which to develope facts.) Prayer For the reason alleged herein, Applicant was denied a fair review of his factual issues on post-conviction habeas corpus review.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Garza, Joel
Applicant would argue, he is entitled to an. evidentiary hearing because the State did not provide full and fair.hearing at which to develope facts, see Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 367-369 (5th Cir.2008)-(where court held petitioner was entitled to evidentiary hearing because the State did not pro vide a full and fair hearing at which to develope facts.) Prayer For the reason alleged herein, Applicant was denied a fair review of his factual issues on post-conviction habeas corpus review.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alonzo Lydell Burgess v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections
See, e.g., Allen v. Buss, 558 F.3d 657, 661-65 (7th Cir.2009); Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 371 (5th Cir.2008) (“The issue of mental retardation, defined by Atkins only after Hall was tried ... is fact-intensive and rests on nuanced determinations under broadly stated concepts such as ‘limitations in adaptive functioning.’ If Hall can prove the facts that he has consistently alleged on appeal, he will be entitled to habeas relief.”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Brumfield v. Cain
(3×)
Allen v. Buss, 558 F.3d 657, 661-65 (7th Cir.2009) (citing Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 371-72 (5th Cir.2008)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Pierce v. Thaler
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
See Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365 , 371 n.27 (5th Cir. 2008); id. at 376 (Higginbotham, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Ex parte Plata, No. 693143-B (351st Dist.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lizcano, Juan
App. 2008) (“A defendant, asserting a mental retardation claim in a death penalty case, is entitled to the process of a ‘full and fair hearing’ to establish this claim.”) (quoting Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 371 (5th Cir. 2008)). 37 256 S.W .3d, at 272.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lizcano, Juan
App. 2008) ("A defendant, asserting a mental retardation claim in a death penalty case, is entitled to the process of a 'full and fair hearing' to establish this claim.") (quoting Hall v. Quarterman , 534 F.3d 365, 371 (5th Cir. 2008)). 37. 256 S.W.3d, at 272 . 38.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Pierce v. Thaler
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
See Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365 , 371 n. 27 (5th Cir.2008); id. at 376 (Higginbotham, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Ex parte Plata, No. 693143-B (351st Dist.Ct.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hall v. Thaler
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 397-98 (5th Cir.2008) (Higginbotham, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Pierce v. Thaler
(10×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
See Hall, 534 F.3d at 371 n. 27; id. at 376 (Higginbotham, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Ex parte Plata, No. 693143-B (31st Dist.Ct.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas v. Quarterman
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“We review [a] federal district court’s refusal to grant an evidentiary hearing on the Atkins issue for an abuse of discretion.” Hall v. Quarierman, 534 F.3d 365, 367 (5th Cir.2008). “[A] district court abuses its discretion in not holding an evidentiary hearing only if the state court failed to provide a full and fair hearing.” Id. at 368-69 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richards v. Quarterman
“In determining whether to grant a hearing, under Rule 8(a) of the habeas Court Rules ‘the judge must review the answer [and] any transcripts and records of state-court proceed *563 ings ... to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.’ ” Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Schriro, 550 U.S. at 473 , 127 S.Ct. 1933 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fontenot v. Crow
(2×)
See Dissent at 10 (citing Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365 , 366–72 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding district court abused its discretion in not holding an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether a prisoner was intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for death penalty); Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Lab’ys, Inc., 803 F.3d 518 , 541 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding district court’s decision to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims was an abuse of discretion because “it resulted in the needless creation of new law for nine states and permitted parties that were either ignor…
cited
Cited "see"
Ledet, Desmond
See for example Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 392-93 (5th Cir.2008) (Patrick E.
discussed
Cited "see"
Carl Blue v. Rick Thaler, Director
Clark, 202 F.3d at 766 (citing Moawad v. Anderson, 143 F.3d 942, 947-48 (5th Cir.1998)); accord Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 368-69 (5th Cir.2008) (per curiam); Murphy v. Johnson, 205 F.3d 809, 816 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 957 , 121 S.Ct. 380 , 148 L.Ed.2d 293 (2000). 25 .
cited
Cited "see"
Hughes v. Epps
See Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365 (5th Cir.2008) (emphasizing need for “full and fair hearing ... where such a hearing would bring out facts which, if proven true, support habeas relief.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Maldonado v. Thaler
See Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 395 (5th Cir.2008) (cautioning not “to commit the ultimate decision of mental retardation to the experts” alone).
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. State
(2×)
See Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 371 (5th Cir.2008).
cited
Cited "see"
Simpson v. Quarterman
See Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365 (5th Cir.2008) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lizcano, Juan
See, e.g., Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 393 (5th Cir. 2008) (Higginbotham, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (using quotation marks to modify “scientific” regarding Briseno factors); Chester v. Thaler, 666 F.3d 340, 372 (5th Cir. 2011) (Dennis, J., dissenting) Lizcano Dissent - 4 (sharply criticizing the Briseno factors as unscientific, stating that “the Briseno factors turn on its head the consensus’s approach to determining whether the petitioner has significant limitations in adaptive functioning”); see also John H.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Moore v. Quarterman
(2×)
See, e.g., Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 376 (5th Cir.2008).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Howard Allen, Jr. v. Mark E. Levenhagen
See, e.g., Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 371-72 (5th Cir. 2008) (remanding defendant’s claim to district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing where state only considered defendant’s mental retardation evidence on paper); Hill v. Anderson, 300 F.3d 679, 682 (6th Cir. 2002) (remanding defendant’s claim to state courts to consider Atkins issue even though jury con- sidered evidence of mental retardation as mitigating factor in sentencing).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Allen v. Buss
See, e.g., Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365, 371-72 (5th Cir.2008) (remanding defendant’s claim to district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing where state only considered defendant’s mental retardation evidence on paper); Hill v. Anderson, 300 F.3d 679, 682 (6th Cir.2002) (remanding defendant’s claim to state courts to consider Atkins issue even though jury considered evidence of mental retardation as mitigating factor in sentencing).
Hall
v.
Quarterman
v.
Quarterman
06-70041.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 15, 2007.
Unpublished
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 15, 2007 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
No. 06-70041
MICHAEL WAYNE HALL, Petitioner-Appellant versus
NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth (06-CV-436)
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
We grant a certificate of appealability on Michael Wayne
Hall’s Atkins claim.1 The case will be scheduled for oral argument before this panel.
We are not presently persuaded to grant and we defer decision upon the application for a certificate of appealability on Hall’s
Ring2 and Penry3 claims until after oral argument. The Court does
1 Atkins v. Virginia , 506 U.S. 314 (2002); Hall v. Texas, 537 U.S. 802 (2002). 2 Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). 3 Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001). not request but the parties may supplement the Ring and Penry claims and offer argument, if they wish to do so.
So ORDERED.
[*2]