HOLLAND
v.
ILLINOIS, 493 U. S. 474; MOORE V. CALIFORNIA, 490 U. S. 1095; KINDIG V. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., ET AL., 493 U. S. 1025; GRIMES V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., 493 U. S. 1058; WEAVER V. SHEAFFER ET AL., 493 U. S. 1059; AND BOWYER V. UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ET AL., 493 U. S. 1046.
HOLLAND
ILLINOIS, 493 U. S. 474; MOORE V. CALIFORNIA, 490 U. S. 1095; KINDIG V. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., ET AL., 493 U. S. 1025; GRIMES V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., 493 U. S. 1058; WEAVER V. SHEAFFER ET AL., 493 U. S. 1059; AND BOWYER V. UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ET AL., 493 U. S. 1046.
494 U.S. 1050
Supreme Court of the United States (1990)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Price v. North Carolina, 512 U.S. 1249 (U.S. 1994)…vidence is only fueled by the North Carolina Supreme Court’s acknowledgment “there [wa]s evidence which supported] several of the mitigating circumstances not found by the jury.” 331 N. C., at 628, 418 S. E. 2d, at 173. Cf. McNeil v. North Carolina, 494 U. S. 1050 (1990) (Kennedy, J., dissenting from grant of certiorari) (noting that McKoy error may be harmless where the defendant did not present mitigating evidence). It is true that this is the third time we have remanded this case for further consideration…