green
Positive treatment
published
Quoted verbatim 3×
15.4 score
Cited for
Errors in the application of state law, especially rulings regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence, are usually not to be questioned in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.
- Rice v. Moore, 633 F. Supp. 2d 541 (S.D. Ohio 2008).published(Errors in the application of state law, especially rulings regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence, are usually not to be questioned in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.)
- Kumal Burton v. Paul Renico, Warden, 391 F.3d 764 (6th Cir. 2004).published (Errors in the application of state law, especially rulings regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence, are usually not to be questioned in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.)
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“errors in the application of state law, especially rulings regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence, are usually not to be questioned in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.”
- Rice v. Moore, 633 F. Supp. 2d 541 (S.D. Ohio 2008).published“errors in the application of state law, especially rulings regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence, are usually not to be questioned in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.”
- Kumal Burton v. Paul Renico, Warden, 391 F.3d 764 (6th Cir. 2004).published “errors in the application of state law, especially rulings regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence, are usually not to be questioned in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.”
Other citing cases
- David v. Lavinge, 190 F. Supp. 2d 974 (E.D. Mich. 2002).published
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gomez-Infante
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 00-9016.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 16, 2001.
Published opinion
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.