green
Positive treatment
3.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Runnels v. Sheriff, Gregg County
Petitioner has established neither “an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circum- stances rendering such process ineffective to protect his rights.” Moon v. Collins, 22 F.3d 1093, 1093 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)) (cleaned up).
discussed
Cited "see"
Arthur Stallworth v. Ralph Slaughter
See Hoffmans v. Univ. of Tex. at El Paso, 22 F.3d 1093 , 1994 WL 198869 , *2 (5th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (unpublished) (holding that a university professor did not have a cognizable property interest in an expected pay raise because her expectations were conditioned by the fact that her appointment had to approved every year by the Board of Regents).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Delmonico v. Bonta
See, e.g., McMonagle v. Meyer, 802 22 F.3d 1093 , 1099 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (petitioner seeking federal habeas review of 23 misdemeanor conviction is not required to present his claims to California Supreme Court in order 24 to exhaust them where California Court of Appeal declines to hear claims on merits).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chu v. Mississippi State University
See, e.g., Hoffmans v. Univ. of Tex. at El Paso, 22 F.3d 1093, 1994 WL 198869 , at *2 (5th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (university professor had no cognizable property interest in an expected pay raise because any pay raise she received was dependent upon whether her appointment was approved each year by the Board of Regents).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hoffmans
v.
University of Texas
v.
University of Texas
93-08185.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
May 2, 1994.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Hoffmans
v.
University of Texas[*]
NO. 93-08185
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
May 02, 1994
1
Appeal From: W.D.Tex.
2
AFFIRMED.
*
Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir.R. 34.2