PETERSON
v.
PETERSON
PETERSON
PETERSON
449 U.S. 1019
Supreme Court of the United States (1980)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Duvalier Antonio Davis, 900 F.2d 1524 (10th Cir. 1990)…nstitutional significance”); Montilla, 870 F. 2d at 553 (“Montilla had no constitutional right to a plea bargain”) (citing United States v. Osif, 789 F. 2d 1404, 1405 (9th Cir.1986)); Martinez v. Romero, 626 F. 2d 807, 809 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1019, 101 S.Ct. 585, 66 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980) (petitioner has “no constitutional right to a plea bargain on his own terms”). We agree with the observation of the Ninth Circuit in Montilla: “A forced choice be [*1527] tween asserting a constitutional right a…
-
Pierce v. Parratt, 666 F.2d 1205 (8th Cir. 1981)…rate offense. Oyler v. Boles, supra, 368 U.S. at 452, 82 S.Ct. at 503, 504. Second, “[a] certain measure of discretion is inevitable in the performance of the prosecutorial function.” Martinez v. Romero, 626 F. 2d 807, 810 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1019, 101 S.Ct. 585, 66 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980). In Brown v. Parratt, 560 F. 2d 303, 304 (8th Cir. 1977), we rejected the argument that a prosecutor has unlimited discretion to prosecute under Nebraska’s habitual criminal statute. “Opportunities for discretio…