Legal Opinion
Austin v. Bell
District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Decided January 26, 1996No. 3:86-0293PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
JOHN T. NIXON, Chief Judge.
Pending before the Court in the above-styled case is Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 146). Petitioner Austin asserts that there are no issues of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Petitioner moves this Court to issue the writ of habeas corpus unless the State grants him a new trial at which the State is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury is required to decide the case on its factual merits, and Mr. Austin is sentenced in a manner consistent with the law.
For the reasons stated…
2Cases cited58 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Estelle v. McGuireSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Robert Glen Coe, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Ricky Bell, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
- State v. StevensTennessee Supreme Court · 2002
- Richard H. Austin v. Ricky Bell, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
- United States v. ThomasCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1997
- Scott v. AndersonDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1998
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.