§Why CasetextPricing

LEWIS

Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief

10 Cited authorities

  1. Atkins v. Virginia

    536 U.S. 304 (2002)   Cited 3,117 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute intellectually disabled defendants

  2. Washington v. Davis

    426 U.S. 229 (1976)   Cited 3,269 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that disparate impact without evidence of discriminatory intent does not violate the Equal Protection Clause

  3. University of California Regents v. Bakke

    438 U.S. 265 (1978)   Cited 1,173 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff suffered an injury when he could not compete for all places in his entering medical school class

  4. Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California

    55 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 721 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Finding trial court properly excluded expert testimony

  5. In re Hawthorne

    35 Cal.4th 40 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding Cal. Penal Code § 1376, eff. Jan. 1, 2004, applies on post-conviction

  6. In re Champion

    58 Cal.4th 965 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 45 times
    Stating the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims

  7. Hernandez v. Stephens

    572 U.S. 1036 (2014)

    No. 13–8004. 03-31-2014 Ramiro HERNANDEZ, aka Ramiro Hernandez–Llanas, petitioner, v. William STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

  8. Hernandez v. Stephens

    537 F. App'x 531 (5th Cir. 2013)   Cited 23 times
    Detailing the procedural history of Hernandez's case starting with his conviction

  9. People v. Superior Court (Vidal)

    40 Cal.4th 999 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that although the California Legislature did not expressly provide for appeal from a trial court's determination that a defendant was mentally retarded, allowing such an appeal was consistent with California Penal Code section 1238 which provides for interlocutory review of orders or judgments dismissing or otherwise terminating all or any portion of the action

  10. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or