green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.2 score
“where there is a close degree of similarity between the crime charged and the prior bad act, the prior bad act is admissible to demonstrate a common scheme or plan.”
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Deleston
where there is a close degree of similarity between the crime charged and the prior bad act, the prior bad act is admissible to demonstrate a common scheme or plan.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Freeman
See United States v. Aguiar, 737 F.3d 251 (2d Cir.2013), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 400 , 190 L.Ed.2d 290 (2014).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Valle
See United States v. Aguiar, 737 F.3d 251, 265 (2d Cir.2013) (“We agree that much of the evidence could be read to have an innocent meaning, but when the evidence raises two permissible inferences then we must resolve such conflicts in favor of the prosecution.”), cer t. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 400 , 190 L.Ed.2d 290 (2014); United States v. Friedman, 998 F.2d 53, 56 (2d Cir.1993) (explaining that “[i]t is not for [the court] to weigh ... competing inferences and explanations” to ascertain “which explanation [of defendant’s conduct] is more likely”); see also, e.g., United S…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Martinez v. United States
See West v. Keve, 721 F.2d 91, 96 (3d Cir.1983) (observing that “to allow a party to rely on Rule 60(b) as an alternative to the time constraints of Rule 4(a) would have the substantive effect of nullifying the provisions of Rule 4(a)(5)”); see also Perez v. Stephens, 745 F.3d 174, 179 (6th Cir.2014) (rejecting use of extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6) to circumvent limitations of FRAP 4(a)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 401 , 190 L.Ed.2d 289 (2014); White v. Jones, 408 Fed.Appx. 293, 295 (11th Cir.2011) (expressing doubt as to whether a Rule 60(b) motion is an availabl…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chad Davis v. William Stephens, Director
See Dunn, 302 F.3d at 492-93 ; see also Perez v. Stephens, 745 F.3d 174, 177-79 (5th Cir.) (holding that Rule 60(b) does not permit circumvention of Rule 4’s time limits for appealing in a habeas case), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 401 , 190 L.Ed.2d 289 (2014).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Billy Wayne COPE
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA.
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA.
No. 13–8427..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 20, 2014.
83 U.S.L.W. 3234
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of South Caro… (1)
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied.