§Why CasetextPricing

Skinner vs Switzer

Brief/Memorandum in Support

84 Cited authorities

  1. Heck v. Humphrey

    512 U.S. 477 (1994)   Cited 30,340 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Section 1983 plaintiff may not seek damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or sentence unless the conviction or sentence has been invalidated

  2. Coleman v. Thompson

    501 U.S. 722 (1991)   Cited 26,972 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding in relevant part that federal habeas review of a procedurally defaulted claim is barred "unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law"

  3. Anders v. California

    386 U.S. 738 (1967)   Cited 79,798 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if appellate counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw" and accompany that request with a "brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal"

  4. Skinner v. Switzer

    562 U.S. 521 (2011)   Cited 3,014 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rooker-Feldman does not stop a prisoner's § 1983 challenge to a state statute

  5. Jones v. Barnes

    463 U.S. 745 (1983)   Cited 11,318 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was not ineffective assistance for appellate counsel to decline to make every nonfrivolous argument requested by the defendant

  6. Wainwright v. Sykes

    433 U.S. 72 (1977)   Cited 8,946 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state procedural waiver of a federal claim will serve to bar to federal habeas review of the claim absent a showing of "cause and prejudice"

  7. Bracy v. Gramley

    520 U.S. 899 (1997)   Cited 3,121 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment establishes a constitutional floor, not a uniform standard" and noting the existence of many laws that legislate above that constitutional minimum

  8. In re Winship

    397 U.S. 358 (1970)   Cited 11,803 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

  9. Brady v. United States

    397 U.S. 742 (1970)   Cited 7,465 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant who pled guilty to federal kidnapping could not impugn the propriety of his plea under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on a later development striking down the death penalty for that offense

  10. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore

    439 U.S. 322 (1979)   Cited 4,298 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 336,952 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 100,320 times   686 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  13. Section 64.01 - Motion

    Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.01   Cited 776 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Regarding post-conviction DNA testing

  14. Section 64.03 - Requirements; Testing

    Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.03   Cited 617 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Convicting court may order DNA testing only if it finds, among other things, that the convicted person establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the request for DNA testing is not made to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or administration of justice

  15. Rule 705 - Disclosing the Underlying Facts or Data and Examining an Expert About Them

    Tex. R. Evid. 705   Cited 402 times

    (a) Stating an Opinion Without Disclosing the Underlying Facts or Data. Unless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinion-and give the reasons for it- without first testifying to the underlying facts or data. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination. (b) Voir Dire Examination of an Expert About the Underlying Facts or Data. Before an expert states an opinion or discloses the underlying facts or data, an adverse party in a civil case may-or

  16. Rule 79.2 - Contents

    Tex. R. App. P. 79.2   Cited 62 times

    (a) The motion must briefly and distinctly state the grounds and arguments relied on for rehearing. (b) A motion for rehearing an order that grants discretionary review may not be filed. (c) A motion for rehearing an order that refuses a petition for discretionary review may be grounded only on substantial intervening circumstances or on other significant circumstances which are specified in the motion. Counsel must certify that the motion is so grounded and that the motion is made in good faith

  17. Rule 79.1 - Motion for Rehearing

    Tex. R. App. P. 79.1   Cited 10 times

    A motion for rehearing may be filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals clerk within 15 days from the date of the judgment or order. In exceptional cases, if justice requires, the Court may shorten the time within which the motion may be filed or even deny the right to file it altogether. Tex. R. App. P. 79.1

  18. Rule 79.5 - Further Motion for Rehearing

    Tex. R. App. P. 79.5

    The Court will not consider a second motion for rehearing after rehearing is denied. If rehearing is granted and the Court delivers an opinion on rehearing, a party may file a further motion for rehearing. Tex. R. App. P. 79.5