§Why CasetextPricing

AVITIA v. S.C.

Real Party in Interest, The People, Answer Brief on the Merits

69 Cited authorities

  1. Sandin v. Conner

    515 U.S. 472 (1995)   Cited 18,648 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that liberty interests requiring procedural due process are limited to freedom from restraints that impose "atypical and significant hardship" as compared to ordinary prison life

  2. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 19,980 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

  3. Albright v. Oliver

    510 U.S. 266 (1994)   Cited 12,401 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim failed where the plaintiff failed to establish that he was deprived of a substantive due process right secured by the Constitution

  4. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,488 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  5. McDonald v. City of Chicago

    561 U.S. 742 (2010)   Cited 2,275 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Second Amendment applies to the states, through incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment

  6. Arizona v. Fulminante

    499 U.S. 279 (1991)   Cited 5,293 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

  7. Collins v. Harker Heights

    503 U.S. 115 (1992)   Cited 4,875 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 1983 "does not provide a remedy for abuses that do not violate federal law"

  8. Engle v. Isaac

    456 U.S. 107 (1982)   Cited 6,370 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding burden to demonstrate cause and prejudice is far "greater than the showing required to establish plain error on direct appeal"

  9. Sullivan v. Louisiana

    508 U.S. 275 (1993)   Cited 3,282 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "

  10. Washington v. Glucksberg

    521 U.S. 702 (1997)   Cited 2,633 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide

  11. Section 13

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 13   Cited 4,515 times
    Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"

  12. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,313 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  13. Section 2111 - Harmless error

    28 U.S.C. § 2111   Cited 1,179 times
    Directing appellate courts to review cases without regard to errors that do not affect parties' "substantial rights"

  14. Section 14

    Cal. Const. art. I § 14   Cited 385 times
    Establishing the right to felony arraignment "without unnecessary delay"

  15. Section 24

    Cal. Const. art. I § 24   Cited 193 times
    Making explicit that "[r]ights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution"

  16. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,846 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary

  17. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer