green
Positive treatment
6.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
cited
Cited "see"
Smith Jr. v. City of Chicago, The
See United States v. Boyd, 208 F.3d 638, 646-47 (7th Cir. 2000), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1135 (2001); In re Initial Pub.
cited
Cited "see"
Robinson v. Hutchinson
See Robinson v. United States, 531 U.S. 1135 , 121 S. Ct. 1071 (2001) (mem.).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re: Marshall Samuel Sanders
See United States v. Boyd, 208 F.3d 638, 649 (7th Cir. 2000), vacated on other grounds, 28 531 U.S. 1135 (2001)(correcting a clerical error without remand). -2- 1 cases to support his argument about the dismissal of the adversary 2 proceedings.
discussed
Cited "see"
Felix Rocha v. Rick Thaler, Director
See Barrientes v. Johnson, 221 F.3d 741 , 759 n. 10 (5th Cir.2000) ("We treat article 11.071 as a codification of the Texas abuse-of-the-writ doctrine.” (citing Ex parte Smith, 977 S.W.2d 610 , 611 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1998))), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1134 , 121 S.Ct. 902 , 148 L.Ed.2d 948 (2001); see also Ex parte Keir, 64 S.W.3d 414 , 418 n. 11 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) ("[T]his Court had long ago recognized the jurisprudential problems attendant to multiple writ filings and hinted of judicial invocation of the 'abuse of the writ' doctrine ....
discussed
Cited "see"
Jennings v. Everett
See Barrientes v. Johnson, 221 F.3d 741, 772 (5th Cir.2000) (“[T]he determination of whether a COA should issue must be made by viewing the petitioner’s arguments through the lens of the deferential scheme laid out in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).”), cert, dismissed, 531 U.S. 1134 , 121 S.Ct. 902 , 148 L.Ed.2d 948 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Graves
See Robinson v. United States, 531 U.S. 1135 , 121 S.Ct. 1071 , 148 L.Ed.2d 949 (2001) (remanding for consideration in light of Ap-prendi ); see also United States v. Harris, 243 F.3d 806 , 2001 WL 273146 (4th Cir. Mar.20, 2001) (No. 00-4154) (holding that Apprendi does not apply to an increase in statutory minimum sentence).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jesus Nunez-Nativida
P. 1(a)(1) (Rules apply in criminal proceedings in courts of appeals); United States v. Pulley, 601 F.3d 660 , 668 n.4 (7th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Boyd, 208 F.3d 638, 649 (7th Cir. 2000), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1135 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Nunez-Natividad
See Fed.R.Crim.P. 1(a)(1) (Rules apply in criminal proceedings in courts of appeals); United States v. Pulley, 601 F.3d 660 , 668 n. 4 (7th Cir.2010); see also United States v. Boyd, 208 F.3d 638, 649 (7th Cir.2000), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1135 , 121 S.Ct. 1072 , 148 L.Ed.2d 949 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bonner
R.Crim.P. 1(a)(1) (noting that these rules govern all criminal proceedings in both federal district courts and courts of appeals) and Fed.R.Crim.P. 36 (“[T]he court may at any time correct a clerical error in a judgment ....”); see also United States v. Boyd, 208 F.3d 638, 649 (7th Cir.2000), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1135 , 121 S.Ct. 1072 , 148 L.Ed.2d 949 (2001) (correcting a clerical error without remand).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Magana-Bonner, Maria
P. 36 (“[T]he court may at any time correct a clerical error in a judg- ment . . . .”); see also United States v. Boyd, 208 F.3d 638, 649 (7th Cir. 2000), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1135 (2001) (correcting a clerical error without remand).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Smith, Danny
Nos. 00-4184 & 00-4214 29 “ ‘the tail that wags the dog of the substantive offense.’ ” Id. at 1322 (quoting McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 84 (1986); see also United States v. Hardin, 209 F.3d 652, 654 (7th Cir. 2000) (stating in dicta that “perhaps in extreme circumstances . . . clear and convincing evidence would be the standard of proof for sentencing factors”), vacated, Sallis v. United States, 531 U.S. 1135 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Danny Smith and Harry D. Lowe
(2×)
To support his argument, Lowe directs our attention to United States v. Rodriguez, 67 F.3d 1312 (7th Cir.1995), where we stated in dicta that a case might require a higher standard of proof when the finding at sentencing becomes “ ‘the tail that wags the dog of the substantive offense.’ ” Id. at 1322 (quoting McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 84 , 106 S.Ct. 2411 , 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986)); see also United States v. Hardin, 209 F.3d 652, 654 (7th *745 Cir.2000) (stating in dicta that “perhaps in extreme circumstances ... clear and convincing evidence would be the standard of proof f…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation
Compare United States v. Boyd, 208 F.3d 638 (7th Cir.2000), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1135 , 121 S.Ct. 1072 , 148 L.Ed.2d 949 (2001) (holding that district judge was not required to recuse himself from case on ground that he had personal knowledge of disputed evidentia-ry facts even though he had been head of state police during investigation of business connected to defendants’ gang because judge did not have full knowledge of details of investigation); Easley v. University of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 906 F.2d *95 1143, 1147 (6th Cir.1990) (holding that because judge had not acquir…
McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v.
Verdine
v.
Verdine
No. 00-1014.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 12, 2001.
Cited by 20 opinions | Published
Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.