green
Positive treatment
4.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Hamilton v. Roehrich
(2×)
See, Cox v. Burger, 398 F.3d 1025, 1031 (8th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 844 , 126 S.Ct. 93 , 163 L.Ed.2d 109 (2005), quoting Barrett v. Acevedo, 169 F.3d 1155,1161-62 (8th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 846 , 120 S.Ct. 120 , 145 L.Ed.2d 102 (1999); Abdullah v. Groose, 75 F.3d 408, 411 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1215 , 116 S.Ct. 1838 , 134 L.Ed.2d 941 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Opalec v. Curry
See In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1078 , 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , 104 P.3d 783 (Cal.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 844 , 126 S.Ct. 92 , 163 L.Ed.2d 109 (2005); Cal.Penal Code § § 190, 664.
cited
Cited "see"
Willis v. Kane
See In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1078 , 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , 104 P.3d 783 (Cal.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 92 , 163 L.Ed.2d 109 (2005); Cal.Penal Code § 190.
cited
Cited "see"
Thomas v. Brown
See In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1078 , 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , 104 P.3d 783 (Cal.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 844 , 126 S.Ct. 92 , 163 L.Ed.2d 109 (2005); Cal.Penal Code § 190.
discussed
Cited "see"
Carney v. Fabian
(2×)
See Cox v. Burger, 398 F.3d 1025, 1031 (8th Cir.2005) (successful demonstrations of actual innocence are “rare and limited,” because the actual innocence exception is “permitted only for ‘truly persuasive demonstrations of actual innocence,’ based on reliable new evidence which shows ‘it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted [the petitioner] in light of the new evidence’ ”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 93 , 163 L.Ed.2d 109 (2005) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Martinez v. Marshall
Rather, “the circumstances of the commitment offense (or any other factors related to unsuitability) establish unsuitability if, and only if, those circumstances are probative to the determination that a prisoner remains a danger to the public.” Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th at 1212 , 82 Cal.Rptr.3d at 190 , 190 P.3d 535 ; In re Rico, 171 Cal.App.4th 659, 673 , 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 866 (2009); Milot, 628 F.Supp.2d at 1167; see also Irons, 505 F.3d at 851-52 (“A prisoner’s commitment offense may constitute a circumstance tending to show that a prisoner is presently too dangerous to be found suitable f…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Paddock v. Mendoza-Powers
“However, petitioner has not been found suitable for parole, which is a prerequisite for the determination of a ‘base term’ and the calculation of a parole date.” Murphy v. Espinoza, 401 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1055 (C.D.Cal. 2005); see also Irons v. Carey, 505 F.3d 846 , 851 n. 3 (9th Cir.2007) (A “ ‘determination of an individual inmate’s suitability for parole under section 304-1, subdivision (b) must precede any effort to set a parole release date under the uniform-term principles of section 3041, subdivision (a).’ ”) *1129 (quoting In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1079-80 , 23…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McCarns v. Dexter
Hayward , at 542 (citations omitted); see also In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1078 , 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417, 426 , 104 P.3d 783 (“[IJndeterminate sentencees may serve up to life in prison, but they become eligible for parole consideration after serving minimum terms of confinement.”), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 844 , 126 S.Ct. 92 , 163 L.Ed.2d 109 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cass v. Woodford
See also In Re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1070 , 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , 104 P.3d 783 , cert. denied by Dannenberg v. Brown, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 92 , 163 L.Ed.2d 109 (2005) (upholding board’s denial of parole after numerous prior suitability hearings where “Dannenberg’s crime indicated a continuing public danger, thus making him presently unsuitable for parole, because the murder was ‘especially callous and cruel’ and was committed for a trivial reason.”) The California Supreme Court has thus made clear that parole may be denied solely on the circumstances of the commitment offens…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Murphy v. Espinoza
Petitioner was sentenced to the indeterminate term of 15 years to life imprisonment, P.C. §§ 190, 1168(b); see also In re Monigold, 139 Cal.App.3d 485, 490 , 188 Cal.Rptr. 698 (1983) ("A sentence of 15 years to life is by its nature an indeterminate term.”), which "is in legal effect a sentence for the maximum term” of life imprisonment "subject only to the ameliorative power of the [parole authority] to set a lesser term.” In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1097-98 , 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417, 442 , 104 P.3d 783 (2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied sub nom., D…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lann
v.
Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
v.
Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
No. 04-10303.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 2005.
Cited by 20 opinions | Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied: