Tucker v. Cason, 563 U.S. 1008 (2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Tucker v. Cason, 563 U.S. 1008 (2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Christopher Wilkins v. William Stephens, Director (ca5, 2014-03-25)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Christopher Wilkins v. William Stephens, Director
5th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wilkins v. Texas, -U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 2901 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1248 (2011). 4 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Payton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
The state standard has been called “somewhat more favorable to defendants” (People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 480 [2005]), because its “prejudice component focuses on the fairness of the process as a whole rather than its particular impact on the outcome of the case” (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 156 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Ozuna, 7 NY3d 913, 915 [2006]; see also Rosario v Ercole, 601 F3d 118, 124-125 [2010], cert denied 563 US —, 131 S Ct 2901 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Payton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
The state standard has been called “somewhat more favorable to defendants” (People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 480 [2005]), because its “prejudice component focuses on the fairness of the process as a whole rather than its particular impact on the outcome of the case” (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 156 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Ozuna, 7 NY3d 913, 915 [2006]; see also Rosario v Ercole, 601 F3d 118, 124-125 [2010], cert denied 563 US —, 131 S Ct 2901 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Clermont
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
The state standard has been called “somewhat more favorable to defendants” (People v Turner, 5 NY3d at 480), because its “prejudice component focuses on the fairness of the process as a whole rather than its particular impact on the outcome of the case” (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 156 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Ozuna, 7 NY3d 913, 915 [2006]; see also Rosario v Ercole, 601 F3d 118, 124-125 [2010], cert denied 563 US —, 131 S Ct 2901 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Clermont
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
The state standard has been called “somewhat more favorable to defendants” (People v Turner, 5 NY3d at 480), because its “prejudice component focuses on the fairness of the process as a whole rather than its particular impact on the outcome of the case” (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 156 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Ozuna, 7 NY3d 913, 915 [2006]; see also Rosario v Ercole, 601 F3d 118, 124-125 [2010], cert denied 563 US —, 131 S Ct 2901 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kevin Tucker
v.
John Cason, Warden
No. 10-835.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 23, 2011.
563 U.S. 1008
Published

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 393 Fed. Appx. 334.