GRIFFIN
v.
MARTIN, WARDEN, ET AL.; SCOTT V. OHIO; RUSSELL V. GARRAGHTY, WARDEN, ET AL.; MAHDAVI V. SHIRANI; HENRY V. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD; STARKES V. LYNAUGH, INTERIM DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HILL V. LYNAUGH, INTERIM DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MONTGOMERY V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

U.S. | 1987-04-27
Nos. 86-5701; No. 86-5953; No. 86-6147; No. 86-6206; No. 86-6256; No. 86-6268; No. 86-6341; No. 86-6345
481 U.S. 1034 Supreme Court of the United States (1987) Negative Treatment
Cited by 26 cases

Opinion

Full opinion text not available for this case.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (23 total)

  • United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1989)
    …time. The Supreme Court thereafter vacated the lower court judgment and remanded the matter to the Eighth Circuit “for further consideration in light of the position presently asserted by the Solicitor General in his brief.” Petty v. United States, 481 U.S. 1034, 1034, 107 S.Ct. 1968, 95 L.Ed.2d 810 (1987). Upon remand, the Court of Appeals adopted the Solicitor General’s view that the statute was in fact “intended to reach multiple criminal episodes that were distinct in time” rather than multiple felony…
    1 / 2
  • United States v. Balascsak, 873 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1989)
    …ced sentence where the prior convictions relied upon included convictions on six counts of armed robbery, even though the six victims were in one restaurant and robbed at the same time. United States v. Petty, 798 F. 2d 1157 (8th Cir.1986), vacated, 481 U.S. 1034, 107 S.Ct. 1968, 95 L.Ed.2d 810 (1987). In response to Petty’s petition for a writ of certiorari, the Solicitor General confessed error. The Solicitor General began by noting that the phrase “three previous convictions” is ambiguous. (Brief at 25,…
    1 / 2
  • United States v. Pope, 132 F.3d 684 (11th Cir. 1998)
    …cident in which a defendant was convicted of six counts of robbery for simultaneously robbing six restaurant patrons during one “stick up” was sufficient to apply the ACCA. See United States v. Petty, 798 F. 2d 1157, 1159-60 (8th Cir.1986), vacated, 481 U.S. 1034, 107 S.Ct. 1968, 95 L.Ed.2d 810 (1987). Congress added the phrase “committed on occasions different from one another” to avoid outcomes like that in Petty, where a single action by a defendant results in a sentence enhancement under the ACCA. See…

Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw