green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
6.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2008 ·
…conclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ramirez v. Almager
conclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Boultinghouse v. Hall
conclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Brown v. Terhune
he ultimate determination of whether the prosecutor acted with discriminatory intent is a question of fact which turns primarily on an assessment of credibility.
discussed
Cited "see"
Tsipouras v. State
See Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 203 (9th Cir.1995) (noting that, although not a radical break from precedent, Powers announced new rule), cert, denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 1437 , 134 L.Ed.2d 559 (1996); Farrell v. Davis, 3 F.3d 370, 372 (11th Cir.1993) (describing Supreme Court holding in Powers as “complete departure from the established precedent” and thus new rule); Echlin v. LeCureux, 995 F.2d 1344, 1351 (6th Cir.1993) (stating that holding in Powers is not dictated by Batson and that Powers announced new rule), cert, denied, 510 U.S. 993 , 114 S.Ct. 552 , 126 L.Ed.2d 453 (1993); …
discussed
Cited "see"
Turner v. Marshall
See Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 201 (9th Cir.1995) (”[T]he ultimate determination of whether, the prosecutor acted with discriminatory intent [ ] is a question of fact which turns primarily on an assessment of credibility.”) (citation and internal quotation omitted), cert. denied, - U.S. --, 116 S.Ct. 1437 , 134 L.Ed.2d 559 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Randle Lee Dugger, II v. Theo White Attorney General for the State of California
See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984); see also Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 205 (9th Cir.1995) ("conclusory suggestions that [a defendant's] trial and state appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance fall far short of stating a valid claim of constitutional violation.") (cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1437 (1996). 7 Dugger contends that his appellate counsel erred by arguing that Dugger should not have been subject to a competency hearing at his trial, and by making an ineffective argument regarding Dugger's right to a speedy trial.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ronald S. Arnold
Although the explanation must be "clear and reasonably specific," Chinchilla, 874 F.2d at 698 (quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n. 20), the Supreme Court recently has clarified that at this second step of the Batson inquiry, the prosecutor's explanation need not be "persuasive, or even plausible." Purkett v. Elem, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 1771 (1995); see also Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 201 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1437 (1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Karageorgos
v.
Beach, Cadigan & Martin
v.
Beach, Cadigan & Martin
No. 95-7853.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 15, 1996.
Published
Citer courts: C.D. California (2) · N.D. California (1)
Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.