Jeffrey York, Cross-Appellant v. Arthur Tate, Cross-Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
1Per curiam
In this appeal from the district court’s order granting habeas relief under 28 U.S. C. § 2254, we are called upon to consider the proper application of the constitutional standard used for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence presented in a state court criminal prosecution resulting in a conviction. In Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the Supreme Court instructed federal courts sitting in habeas to determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Evitts v. LuceySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Carafas v. LaValleeSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- United States v. DieterSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by73 opinions
- State v. JenksOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. GuthrieWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1995
- Banister v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Howard v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- John Demjanjuk v. Joseph PetrovskyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.