green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
12.1 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2024–2025 ·
…a criminal defendant who is represented by counsel has meaningful access to the courts vis-a-vis the criminal action pending against him.
⚠ not in text
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Sampy v. Unknown
a criminal defendant who is represented by counsel has meaningful access to the courts vis-a-vis the criminal action pending against him.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Arceneaux v. Williams
a criminal defendant who is represented by counsel has meaningful access to the courts vis-a-vis the criminal action pending against him.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sandoval v. Davis
See United States v. Covorubbia, 52 F.3d 1068 , 1995 WL 241813 at *3-4 (5th Cir. April 14, 1995) (per curiam) (unpublished). 56 See Court Reporter’s Record, vol. 3 [Doc. # 9-10], at 206-07, 235. decision is not otherwise entitled to deference on federal habeas corpus review.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Van Winkle v. Rogers
SUMMERHAYS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ” “Tefects are not presumed to be present by the mere happening of an accident.” Spott v. Otis Elevator Co., 601 So.2d 1355, 1364 (La. 1992); see also Dudenhefer v. Davol, Inc., 52 F.3d 1068, *4 (Sth Cir. 1995); Krummel v. Bombardier Corp., 206 F.3d 548, 551 (Sth Cir. 2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Housley
v.
Sheriff, Lipscomb
v.
Sheriff, Lipscomb
95-10100.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 18, 1995.
52 F.3d 1068
Unpublished
Citer courts: W.D. Louisiana (2)
Housley
v.
Sheriff, Lipscomb County[*]
NO. 95-10100
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Apr 13, 1995
Appeal From: N.D.Tex., No. 2:92-CV-43
1
AFFIRMED.
*
Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir.R. 34.2