SULLIVAN

v.

LANE, ACTING WARDEN, ET AL.; SULLIVAN V. LANDHOUISE ET AL.; SULLIVAN V. BURGESS ET AL.; SULLIVAN V. THOMPSON, GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS, ET AL.; AND SULLIVAN V. JOHNSON ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

• United States v. Mills, 704 F.2d 1553 (11th Cir. 1983)
  …aim. Despite the absence of a per se rule, an in camera hearing may be constitutionally required in some circumstances. Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. at 348, 101 S.Ct. at 659; [*1564] Holifield v. Davis, 662 F. 2d 710, 711 (llth Cir.), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1026, 102 S.Ct. 1730, 72 L.Ed.2d 147 (1981). Mills has alleged no such unusual, special, out oí the ordinary, or particularly prejudicial circumstances. The determination of whether to conduct an in camera hearing, therefore, rests in the sound discretio…
• Genus D. Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1982)
  …mer alleges that he was denied exercise for seven months “to the point of being cripple [sic] from not exercising and having no room to move around in.” See Montana v. Commissioners Court, 659 F. 2d 19, 22 (5th Cir. 1981) (per curiam), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1026, 102 S.Ct. 1730, 72 L.Ed.2d 147 (1982); McGruder v. Phelps, 608 F. 2d 1023, 1025 (5th Cir. 1979) (citing cases). In view of the fact that Ulmer currently is, and was at the time he filed this action, incarcerated in the State Penitentiary, not in t…
• Ozzie Batchelor v. Hoyt C. Cupp, 693 F.2d 859 (9th Cir. 1982)
  …petent to testify before the jury. Habeas corpus relief for an asserted due process violation is available only where the state court’s action is arbitrary or fundamentally unfair. Cooks v. Spalding, 660 F. 2d 738, 739 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1026, 102 S.Ct. 1729, 72 L.Ed.2d 147 (1982). The trial court acted well within the scope of its discretion by admitting Bozman’s testimony and allowing the jury to determine the weight properly to be given that testimony. D. Admission of Gruesome Photog…