green
Positive treatment
8.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Garza v. Thaler
See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 621-23 (5th Cir.1999) (holding no Eighth Amendment violation resulted from Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ refusal to engage in proportionality review of capital sentencing jury’s answer to mitigation special issue because Texas is a non-weighing jurisdiction), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1145 , 120 S.Ct. 1003 , 145 L.Ed.2d 945 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Trevino v. Thaler
See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 621-23 (5th Cir.1999) (holding no Eighth Amendment violation resulted from Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ refusal to engage in proportionality review of capital sentencing jury’s answer to mitigation special issue because Texas is a non-weighing jurisdiction), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1145 , 120 S.Ct. 1003 , 145 L.Ed.2d 945 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cervantes Salazar v. Dretke
See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 623 (5th Cir.1999)(holding that Texas is not a weighing state), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1145 , 120 S.Ct. 1003 , 145 L.Ed.2d 945 (2000); West v. Johnson, 92 F.3d 1385, 1406 (5th Cir.1996)(rejecting the argument the Texas capital sentencing special issues work as aggravating factors and, therefore, require detailed definitions of the terms employed therein), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1242 , 117 S.Ct. 1847 , 137 L.Ed.2d 1050 (1997); Woods v. Johnson, 75 F.3d 1017, 1033-34 (5th Cir.1996) (rejecting the argument the terms employed in the Texas capital sentencing spe…
discussed
Cited "see"
Prieto v. Dretke
See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 623 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1145 , 120 S.Ct. 1003 , 145 L.Ed.2d 945 (2000), (holding that Texas is not a weighing state); and James v. Collins, 987 F.2d 1116, 1120 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 947 , 114 S.Ct. 30 , 125 L.Ed.2d 780 (1993), (recognizing that, unlike a weighing jurisdiction, Texas sentencing juries are not called upon to weigh statutory aggravating factors against mitigating evidence).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Skatzes, Unpublished Decision (1-31-2003)
See Bryan v. Moore (1999), 528 U.S. 960 , 120 S.Ct. 394 , dismissed (2000), 528 U.S. 1133 , 120 S.Ct. 1003 ; Carter , 89 Ohio St.3d at 608 . {¶ 404} Finally, in his supplemental brief, Skatzes argues that Ohio's capital sentencing provisions are unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Ring v. Arizona (2002), ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 2428 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Peeples v. Coastal Office Products, Inc.
See Glover v. South Carolina Law Enforcement Div., 170 F.3d 411, 415 (4th Cir.1999)(“the scope of protection for activity falling under the participation clause is broader than for activity falling under the opposition clause” of the anti-retaliation prohibitions contained in Title VII (internal quotations and citations omitted)), cert. dismissed, 528 U.S. 1146 , 120 S.Ct. 1005 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1065 (2000); Hoffman v. Lincoln Life and Annuity Distributors, Inc., 174 F.Supp.2d 367, 377 (D.Md.2001)(“Of course, an employee is protected from retaliation even if she is not the victim of discrimi…
discussed
Cited "see"
Harry Grey v. Douglas F. Wilburn, State of Missouri Office of the Secretary of State and Rebecca Cook
(2×)
See Alsbrook v.. Arkansas, 528 U.S. 1146 , 120 S.Ct. 1003 , 145 L.Ed.2d 947 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Key v. Grayson
(2×)
See, Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1005, n. 8 (8th Cir.1999)(en banc), cert. granted 528 U.S. 1146 , 120 S.Ct. 1003 , 145 L.Ed.2d 947 (2000) and cert. dismissed, 529 U.S. 1001 , 120 S.Ct. 1265 , 146 L.Ed.2d 215 (2000); Lewis v. New Mexico Dep’t of Health, 94 F.Supp.2d 1217, 1230 (D.N.M.2000); Calloway v. Boro of Glassboro Dept. of Police, 89 F.Supp2d 543, 557 (D.N.J.2000); Yeskey v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections, 76 F.Supp.2d 572, 575 (M.D.Pa.1999); Montez v. Romer, 32 F.Supp.2d 1235, 1240 (D.Colo.1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Doe v. Division of Youth and Family Services
(2×)
See Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1012 (8th Cir.1999), ce rt. granted sub nom., Alsbrook v. Arkansas, 528 U.S. 1146 , 120 S.Ct. 1003 , 145 L.Ed.2d 947 , cert. dismissed, 529 U.S. 1001 , 120 S.Ct. 1265 , 146 L.Ed.2d 215 (2000) (holding that claim brought under Title II of the ADA against the State was barred under the Eleventh Amendment); Walker v. Snyder, 213 F.3d 344, 346-47 (7th Cir.2000), cert. denied sub nom., United States v. Snyder, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1188 , 149 L.Ed.2d 104 (2001) (holding that claims brought against the State under Title II of the ADA must be brought in…
discussed
Cited "see"
Hartfield v. Johnson
See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999) (claims not argued in the COA application are waived), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1003 (2000); see also Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (issues must be properly briefed to be preserved for appeal).
cited
Cited "see"
Cooper v. Johnson
See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1003 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Marilyn Anderson v. ND State Hospital
See DeBose v. Nebraska, 207 F.3d 1020, 1021 (8th Cir. 1999), petition for cert. filed, No. 99-940, 68 U.S.L.W. 3391 (U.S. Dec. 1, 1999), and Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1002, 1010-12 (8th Cir. 1999) (en banc), cert. granted, 120 S. Ct. 1003 (2000), cert. dism'd, 120 S. Ct. 1265 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Marilyn Anderson, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. North Dakota State Hospital, Appellee/cross-Appellant
See DeBose v. Nebraska, 207 F.3d 1020, 1021 (8th Cir.1999), petition for cert. filed, No. 99-940, 68 U.S.L.W. 3391 (U.S. Dec. 1, 1999), and Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1002, 1010-12 (8th Cir.1999) (en banc), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 120 S.Ct. 1003 , 145 L.Ed.2d 947 (2000), cert. dism’d, — U.S. —, 120 S.Ct. 1265 , 146 L.Ed.2d 215 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas v. Nakatani
(2×)
See Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999 , 1005 n. 8. (8th Cir.1999) (en banc), cert. granted in part, 528 U.S. 1146 , 120 S.Ct. 1003 , 145 L.Ed.2d 947 (2000), cert. dismissed, 529 U.S. 1001 , *692 120 S.Ct. 1265 , 146 L.Ed.2d 215 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. McLaren
See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607 , 629- 30 (5th Cir. 1999) (mere speculation does not adequately support a claim for relief under Brady), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1003 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Cain
See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 614 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 120 S.Ct. 1003 , 145 L.Ed.2d 945 (2000) (The doctrine of procedural default in a § 2254 action “presumes that a state procedural ground is adequate and independent — the rule must, for instance, be regularly followed — and ordinarily, the burden is on the habeas petitioner to demonstrate otherwise.”) Our determination that the Louisiana state courts properly applied their own procedural rule, however, does not end our treatment of this issue.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Alvarez
See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999) (claims not briefed in COA application are deemed waived), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1003 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Browne v. Johnson
See Hughes v Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1003 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Patrick C. Jackan, United States of America, Intervenor v. New York State Department of Labor
See Alsbrook v. Arkansas, cert. granted, - U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 1003 , 145 L.Ed.2d 947 (2000); Florida Dep’t of Corrections v. Dickson, cert. granted, - U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 976 , 145 L.Ed.2d 926 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Bryan v. State
See Bryan v. Moore, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S.Ct. 394 , 145 L.Ed.2d 306 (1999), cert. dismissed, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S.Ct. 1003 , 145 L.Ed.2d 927 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Calloway v. Boro of Glassboro Department of Police
See Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999 , 1005 n. 8 (8th Cir.1999)(en banc), cert. granted in part, — U.S.-, 120 S.Ct. 1003 , 145 L.Ed.2d 947 (2000); Yeskey v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 76 F.Supp.2d 572, 575 (M.D.Pa.1999); Campos v. San Francisco State Univ., No. C-97-2326 MMC, 1999 WL 1201809 at *10 (N.D.Cal.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McDavid v. Arthur
(2×)
See e.g., Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, Arkansas, 184 F.3d 999, 1011 (8th Cir.1999) (en banc), cert. granted in part by Alsbrook v. Arkansas, 528 U.S. 1146 , 120 S.Ct. 1003 , 145 L.Ed.2d 947 (2000), cert. denied by Alsbrook v. Arkansas, 529 U.S. 1001 , 120 S.Ct. 1265 , 146 L.Ed.2d 215 (2000) (presuming that Congress intended the ADA scheme to be exclusive because it serves as a “comprehensive remedial scheme”); Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, Georgia, et al., 112 F.3d 1522, 1531 (11th Cir.1997) (“To permit a plaintiff to sue both under the substantive statutes that set forth detailed adm…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jaudon v. Elder Health, Inc.
Feb. 28, 1997) ("Also protected were [plaintiff’s] direct rebuffs of her supervisor’s sexual harassment.”); see also Glover v. South Carolina Law Enforcement Div., 170 F.3d 411, 415 (4th Cir.1999) (observing that Fourth Circuit applies balancing test "to distinguish between protected opposition and unprotected obstreperousness”), cert. dismissed, 528 U.S. 1146 , 120 S.Ct. 1005 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1065 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lewis v. New Mexico Department of Health
Compare Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999 , 1005 n. 8 (8th Cir.1999) (en banc) (holding individuals not liable under Title II) cert. granted, — U.S.-, 120 S.Ct. 1003 , 145 L.Ed.2d 947 (2000), and cert. dismissed, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 1265 , — L.Ed.2d- (2000); Yeskey v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 76 F.Supp.2d 572, 575 (MD.Pa.1999) (same); Montez v. Romer, 32 F.Supp.2d 1235, 1240 (D.Colo.1999) (same); Randolph v. Rodgers, 980 F.Supp. 1051, 1060 (E.D.Mo.1997) (same), vacated, rev’d, and remanded on other grounds, 170 F.3d 850 (8th Cir.1999); with Niece v. Fitzner, 922 F.Su…
Alsbrook
v.
Arkansas
v.
Arkansas
No. 99-423.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 25, 2000.
Cited by 9 opinions | Published
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition, case consolidated with No. 98-829, Florida Department of Corrections v. Dickson et al. [certiorari granted, ante, p. 1132], and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Brief of petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, March 3, 2000. Brief of respondents is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, March 31, 2000. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday, April 17, 2000. This Court’s Rule 29.2 does not apply.