PIONEER FINISHING CORP.

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ET AL.; WALCK V. AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE, INC., ET AL.; DRURY V. UNITED STATES; MAGGIO, WARDEN V. FULFORD; CARDWELL ET AL. V. TAYLOR; TIMMONS V. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ET AL.; AHMED V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; KALARIS, ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS JUDGE, ET AL. V. DONOVAN, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.; SCALISE ET AL. V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ET AL.; RIOS V. HECKLER, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; MILLER V. ILLINOIS; ZARRILLI V. RANDALL ET AL.; RUIZ V. ILLINOIS; ZETTLEMOYER V. PENNSYLVANIA; ROTHWELL V. BAILEY ET AL.; DUVALLON V. FLORIDA; GRETZLER V. ARIZONA; MASTERS V. OHIO; JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES; RITTER V. RITTER; SPELLMAN V. RIDLEY, ADMINISTRATOR, LORTON YOUTH CENTER

Citator

Cited By

• Adamson v. Ricketts, 865 F.2d 1011 (9th Cir. 1988)
  …imiting construction was applied properly in this case. The Arizona Supreme Court provides a limiting construction of (F)(6) in State v. Gretzler, 135 Ariz. 42, 659 P. 2d 1, cert. denied, 461 U.S. 971, 103 S.Ct. 2444, 77 L.Ed.2d 1327, reh’g denied, 463 U.S. 1236, 104 S.Ct. 32, 77 L.Ed.2d 1452 (1983). However, the majority finds Gretzler construes the word “cruel” over broadly. I disagree. In Gretzler, the Arizona Supreme Court stated that “[wjhere ... there is no evidence that the victims actually suffered…
• In re AOV Indus., Inc., 792 F.2d 1140 (D.C. Cir. 1986)
  …jected the findings of the bankruptcy court to a “substantial evidence” standard of review, relying on this court’s decision in Kalaris v. Donovan, 697 F. 2d 376 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1119, 103 S.Ct. 3088, 77 L.Ed.2d 1349 reh’g denied, 463 U.S. 1236, 104 S.Ct. 30, 77 L.Ed.2d 1451 (1983). He held, inter alia, that the Plan did not treat Hawley differently than it did other members of its class, in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(4); that the Plan’s release provisions did not constitute an imper…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Zettlemoyer v. Fulcomer, 923 F.2d 284 (3d Cir. 1991)
  …t of a new rule that did not fall within either of Teague’s exceptions. Id. 110 S.Ct. at 2833. Zettlemoyer’s conviction became final at the latest on August 23,1983, when rehearing was denied by the United States Supreme Court on his direct appeal, 463 U.S. 1236, 104 S.Ct. 31, 77 L.Ed.2d 1452, two years before the Court announced its decision in Caldwell. Thus, he cannot rely on Caldwell to challenge his capital sentence in this federal habeas corpus action. Sawyer, 110 S.Ct. at 2833. Furthermore, he canno…