green
Positive treatment
6.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Price
Accord Welch v. United States, 604 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2010) (holding that a decision by the United States Supreme Court that “narrowed substantially” the defendant’s 9 No. 1-18-0016 exposure to an enhanced sentence of imprisonment was substantive and retroactively applicable on collateral review), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1018 (2011). ¶ 24 In this case, the trial court should not have refused petitioner’s request for separate jury verdict forms for intentional, knowing, and felony murder, because the jury’s acquittal on intentional and knowing murder would have had different sent…
discussed
Cited "see"
Ricky Jones v. United States
(2×)
See Welch v. United States, 604 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir.2010) (holding Begay and Chambers announced new substantive rules), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 3019 , 180 L.Ed.2d 844 (2011); Lindsey v. United States, 615 F.3d 998, 1000 (8th Cir.2010) (holding Begay retroactive), ce rt. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1712 , 179 L.Ed.2d 641 (2011); United States v. Shipp, 589 F.3d 1084, 1090 (10th Cir.2009) (holding Chambers retroactive). 3 A defendant who does not qualify as an armed career criminal after Begay who nonetheless remains subject to a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence “faces a …
discussed
Cited "see"
Iowa Pacific Holdings, LLC v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
See id. —, accord Welch v. United States, 604 F.3d 408 , 421 n. 15 (7th Cir.2010), cert. denied , — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 3019 , 180 L.Ed.2d 844 (2011); Quanta Services Inc. v. American Administrative Group Inc., 384 Fed.Appx. 291, 296 (5th Cir.2008); United States v. Dohan, 508 F.3d 989, 994 (11th Cir.2007), cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1034 , 128 S.Ct. 2450 , 171 L.Ed.2d 233 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see"
Narvaez v. United States
See id. at 413- 14; see also United States v. Shipp, 589 F.3d 1084, 1089, 1091 (10th Cir. 2009) (holding that Chambers articulated “a substantive rule of statutory interpretation” because a defendant who “does not constitute an armed career criminal . . . [has] received a punishment that the law cannot impose upon him.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Topfire Limited v. Cook
Cir. 2012) (“In 15 [Phillips, 415 F.3d 1303 at 1323 ], this court ‘expressly rejected the contention that if a patent 16 describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited 17 to that embodiment.’”); see also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1342 (Fed. 18 Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the 19 specification—even if it is the only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the 20 intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so limit…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Wyatt
See also Welch v. United States, 604 F.3d 408 (7th Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 3019 , 180 L.Ed.2d 844 (2011).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PPL Montana, LLC
v.
Montana
v.
Montana
No. 10-218.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 20, 2011.
Published
Motion of Professor David Emmons, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Montana granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
Same case below, 355 Mont. 402, 229 P.3d 421.