Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Mayle Vs. Felix

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 23, 2005

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

75 entries 5 linked 70 unlinked
Show
  1. Conley Vs. Gibson US Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1957
  2. Heck Vs. Humphrey US Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1994
  3. Schlup Vs. Delo US Supreme Court · Oct 03, 1994
  4. Wilkinson Vs. Dotson US Supreme Court · Mar 07, 2005
  5. Banks Vs. Dretke US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 2004
  6. Syllabus October Term, 2004 Mayle V. Felix
    Search
  7. in Tiller v. Atlantic
    Search
  8. of the police interrogation, specifically, did Felix answer voluntarily or were his statements coerced. See Haynes v. Washington
    Search
  9. Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined. Mayle v. Felix
    Search
  10. Opinion of the Court Mayle V. Felix
    Search
  11. Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-563 Deneice a. Mayle, Warden, Petitioner V. Jacoby
    Search
  12. Ellzey v. United
    Search
  13. CA7 2003) (same), with United States v. Hicks
    Search
  14. United States v. Espinoza-Saenz
    Search
  15. Davenport v. United
    Search
  16. United States v. Pittman
    Search
  17. United States v. Duffus
    Search
  18. United States v. Craycraft
    Search
  19. as capacious as the construction the Ninth and Seventh Circuits have adopted for habeas cases. Compare Maegdlin v. International
    Search
  20. Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky
    Search
  21. Santana v. Holiday
    Search
  22. Rural Fire Protection Co. v. Hepp
    Search
  23. pay periods, amendment asserting the same type of violation during an additional pay period related back), with Nettis v. Levitt
    Search
  24. Sierra Club v. Penfold
    Search
  25. did not relate back). See also Jackson v. Suffolk
    Search
  26. Citing Chavez v. Martinez
    Search
  27. but at the police interrogation, specifically, did he answer voluntarily or were his statements coerced. See Haynes v. Washington
    Search
  28. Congress enacted AEDPA to advance the finality of criminal convictions. See Rhines v. Weber
    Search
  29. does not mean repeal. See Fuller v. Marx
    Search
  30. concerns, see Williams v. Taylor
    Search
  31. see Ellzey v. United
    Search
  32. convictions. Footnote 4 Habeas corpus proceedings are characterized as civil in nature. See, e.g., Fisher v. Baker
    Search
  33. standards governing successive habeas petitions, standards that do not track the Restatement of Judgments, see Schlup v. Delo
    Search
  34. with a view to the relation back concept employed in Rule 15(c)(2). Footnote 7 For example, in Mandacina v. United
    Search
  35. CA8 2003), the original petition alleged violations of Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  36. obtained at the same time by the same police department. The Court of Appeals approved relation back. And in Woodward v. Williams
    Search
  37. based on the alleged pretrial extraction of damaging statements from Felix. Ordinarily, as we observed in Halbert v. Michigan
    Search
  38. quoting Griffin v. Illinois
    Search
  39. see Pennsylvania v. Finley
    Search
  40. n. 8. Mayle v. Felix
    Search
  41. Souter, J., Dissenting Mayle V. Felix
    Search
  42. presumably say no, for example, in the face of unjustifiable delay or threatened prejudice to the State. See Foman v. Davis
    Search
  43. pleading standard for the benefit of ordinary civil plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), see Conley v. Gibson
    Search
  44. ground for relief, whatever may be the conduct, transaction, or occurrence out of which the claims arise. As Tiller v. Atlantic
    Search
  45. term not only goes to the breadth of relation back, but also to the scope of claim preclusion. E.g. , Kremer v. Chemical
    Search
  46. intended for purposes of claim preclusion in habeas cases. Judge Easterbrook explained this tension in Ellzey v. United
    Search
  47. that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the original petition is the work of a pro se petitioner. See Duncan v. Walker
    Search
  48. each in response to a different proposed tariff amendment) as one transaction or occurrence, see Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky
    Search
  49. rather than the custody obtained by use at trial of the fruits of that conduct. Cf. ante , at 12 (citing Jackson v. Suffolk
    Search
  50. see generally Wilkinson v. Dotson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial