Legal Opinion
Hill v. Mitchell
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided December 21, 1998No. C-1-98-452PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
SARGUS, District Judge.
Petitioner, a prisoner sentenced to death by the State of Ohio, has initiated habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion to hold the proceedings in abeyance, respondent’s memorandum in opposition, and petitioner’s reply. For the following reasons, petitioner’s motion will be denied, without prejudice to renewal.
Petitioner initiated these habeas corpus proceedings on June 19, 1998 by filing a notice of intent to file a habeas corpus petition (docket # 1), a motion for appointment of counsel…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Rose v. LundySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Castille v. PeoplesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Granberry v. GreerSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Darr v. BurfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Vernon Lee Evans, Jr. v. Willie Smith, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of the State of MarylandCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2000
- State v. HillOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- Georgetown Steel Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2003
- Thorworks Industries v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2008
- State v. HillOhio Supreme Court · 2001
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.