green
Positive treatment
6.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Bush
See People v. Jenkins , 22 Cal.4th 900 , 1039, 997 P.2d 1044 , 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 (2000) ("in ruling on [the] defendant's midtrial motion to represent himself, the court correctly noted that it had authority to deny the motion if self-representation required a continuance, and, in advising the defendant of the perils of self-representation, it asked [the] defendant whether he understood, among other things, that he would receive 'no extra time for preparation' "), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1155 , 121 S.Ct. 1104 , 148 L.Ed.2d 975 (2001) ; Commonwealth v. Brooks , supra, at 538, 545 , 104 A.3d 466 …
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Sellers
See State v. Thibodeaux, 352 N.C. 570 , 577, 532 S.E.2d 797 , 803 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1155 , 148 L.Ed.2d 976 (2001) ; see also N.C.R.App.
discussed
Cited "see"
Swink v. Weintraub
See State v. Thibodeaux, 352 N.C. 570, 579 , 532 S.E.2d 797, 804 (2000) (“Abuse of the trial court’s discretion will be found only where the ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1155 , 148 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. McGrady
App. P. 10(b)(1) ("In order to preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the context."); see State v. Thibodeaux, 352 N.C. 570, 577 , 532 S.E.2d 797, 803 (2000) (declining to review an evidentiary assignment of error when defendant failed to enter a specific objection premised on the evidentiary rule purported to be violated), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1155 , 148 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Garcia
(2×)
P. 10(b) (1) ("In order to preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the context."); see State v. Thibodeaux, 352 N.C. 570, 577 , 532 S.E.2d 797, 803 (2000) (declining to review an evidentiary assignment of error when defendant failed to enter a specific objection premised on the evidentiary rule purported to be violated), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1155 , 121 S.Ct. 1106 , 148 L.Ed.2d 976…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Solis
See United States v. Vega, 221 F.3d 789, 801-02 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1155 , 121 S.Ct. 1105 , 148 L.Ed.2d 975 (2001). 33 .
cited
Cited "see"
Hamwi v. State
See Way v. State, 760 So.2d 903, 910 (Fla.2000), ce rt. denied, 531 U.S. 1155 , 121 S.Ct. 1104 , 148 L.Ed.2d 975 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Briscoe
(See Schad v. Arizona (1991) 501 U.S. 624, 630-633 [ 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2496-2498 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 ] (plur. opn.); see also Richardson v. United States (1999) 526 U.S. 813, 817-818 [ 119 S.Ct. 1707, 1710 , 143 L.Ed.2d 985 ].) In Schad , the high court concluded that there was no general requirement that the jury agree on preliminary facts underlying a verdict. 12 (Schad v. Arizona, supra, 501 U.S. at pp. 631-632 [111 S.Ct. at pp. 2496-2497]; see People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1025 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 997 P.2d 1044 ], cert. den. 531 U.S. 1155 [ 121 S.Ct. 1104 , 148 L.Ed.2d 975 ].) Ho…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Minton
See, e.g., State v. Ray, 364 N.C. 272, 277 , 697 S.E.2d 319, 322 (2010) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Thibodeaux, 352 N.C. 570, 581-82 , 532 S.E.2d 797, 806 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1155 , 121 S. Ct. 1106 , 148 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dixon
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 00-6671.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 20, 2001.
Published
C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.