TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Laurent v. Herkert

Nicolas LAURENT v. Nancy N. HERKERT, United States Trustee

Laurent v. Herkert, 128 S. Ct. 59 (11th Cir. 2007)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 1, 2007
Docket
No. 06-1439
Citations
128 S. Ct. 59552 U.S. 812169 L. Ed. 2d 1576 U.S.L.W. 31562007 U.S. LEXIS 10440
Cited by 21 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

  • (stating Apprendi does not require that aggravating circumstances be proven in indictment or that jury verdict be unanimous, and thus counsel was not ineffective for failing to allege such)
    Bowles v. State, 979 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2008)

Cited by 21 cases

View all citing references →
2007: 22008: 112009: 62010: 12012: 120072026peak 2008 · 11

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Central Iowa Power Cooperative v. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.561 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 2009)
  2. Hudson v. State992 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2008)
  3. Merck v. State975 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2007)
  4. Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco570 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2009)
  5. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Hensley556 U.S. 838 (2009) · Dissent
  6. Blake v. State972 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2007)

Most recent

  1. Ellerbee v. State87 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 2012)
  2. Ratliff v. Hedgepeth712 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
  3. Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco570 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2009)
  4. Tennison v. SandersNo. 06-15426 (9th Cir. June 23, 2009)
  5. Jackson v. United States638 F. Supp. 2d 514 (W.D.N.C. 2009)
  6. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Hensley556 U.S. 838 (2009) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list