green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
13.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…as each circuit to address the question has recognized, 2254(d)(1) does not intrude on the independent adjudicative authority of the federal courts. rather, it limits the grounds on which federal courts may grant the habeas remedy to upset a state conviction.
⚠ not in text
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Becker v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., N.A.
a trust is a legal instrument in which assets are held in the name of the trust and managed by a trustee for the benefit of a beneficiary.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kent Sprouse v. William Stephens, Director
as each circuit to address the question has recognized, 2254(d)(1) does not intrude on the independent adjudicative authority of the federal courts. rather, it limits the grounds on which federal courts may grant the habeas remedy to upset a state conviction.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kent Sprouse v. William Stephens, Director
as each circuit to address the question has recognized, 2254(d)(1) does not intrude on the independent adjudicative authority of the federal courts. rather, it limits the grounds on which federal courts may grant the habeas remedy to upset a state conviction.
discussed
Cited "see"
Comité de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas v. Perez
See Lewis v. Alexander, 685 F.3d 325, 338, 340 (3d Cir.2012), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 933 , 184 L.Ed.2d 724 .(2013) (prudential standing requires, inter alia, “that the grievance not be so abstract as to amount to a generalized grievance”); Nat’l Park Hospitality Ass’n v. Dept. of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 808 , 123 S.Ct. 2026 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2003) (doctrine of ripeness is drawn both from Article III limitations on judicial power and from prudential reasons for refusing to exercise jurisdiction) (citing Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 , 87 S.Ct. 1507 , 18 L.E…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ateliers De La Haute-Garonne v. Broetje Automation Usa Inc.
U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Nat'l Gypsum Co., 74 F.3d 1209 , 1215-16 & n. 7 (Fed.Cir.1996) (holding that intent is not required for a best mode violation and noting that the discussion of intent in Brooktree was dicta); see also, e.g., In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1085 (Fed.Cir.2012) (holding that "the proper inquiry [in a best mode analysis] focuses on the adequacy of the disclosure rather than motivation for any nondisclosure”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 933 , 184 L.Ed.2d 725 (2013); Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Duke Energy International, Inc.
v.
Williams
v.
Williams
No. 12-477.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 14, 2013.
Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (2) · E.D. Pennsylvania (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.