TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Steven King Ainsworth v. Arthur Calderon, Warden, Steven King Ainsworth v. Arthur Calderon, Warden

Steven King AINSWORTH, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-Appellant; Steven King AINSWORTH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee

Steven King Ainsworth v. Arthur Calderon, Warden, Steven King Ainsworth v. Arthur Calderon, Warden, 152 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 1998)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 8, 1998
Docket
Nos. 96-99017, 96-99018
Judges
Browning, Leavy, Trott
Citations
152 F.3d 122398 Daily Journal DAR 974598 D.A.R. 974598 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 70111998 U.S. App. LEXIS 21849

Opinion

ORDER The opinion filed March 10, 1998 [ 138 F.3d 787 ] is amended as follows: (1) at Slip Op. page 2136 [138 F.3d at 789], delete the last sentence of the first paragraph of the opinion which reads, “We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to deny the writ” and substitute ‘We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to deny the writ as to Ainsworth’s guilt phase claims and for further proceedings on his penalty phase claims” and (2) at Slip Op. page 2156 [138 F.3d at 797], add the following sentence as the last sentence of the opinion: “REMANDED for further proceedings on Ainsworth’s penalty phase claims.”

The panel has voted to deny the petitioner’s request to file a reply to the response to the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc. With the opinion amended as stated above, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges Browning and Trott have voted to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and Judge Leavy so recommended. The full court has been advised of the en banc suggestion and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it. The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
2000: 22001: 32002: 12004: 62005: 22007: 12009: 120002026peak 2004 · 6

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. John Henry Casey v. Robert Moore386 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2004)
  2. Leavitt v. Arave383 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2004)
  3. Daniels v. Woodford428 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2005)
  4. John Thomas Drayden v. Theo White, Warden232 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 2000)
  5. Somphalavanh Sophanthavong v. Joan Palmateer, Superintendent378 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 2004)
  6. Leavitt v. Arave371 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2004)

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