Sixth Circuit· 7/10/2009

Fautenberry v. Mitchell

Citations

572 F.3d 267
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 15270
2009 WL 1975853

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

explaining that Fautenberry “did not argue to the district court” the reasonable necessity of the services
explaining that Fautenberry “did not argue to the district court” the reasonable necessity of the services
explaining that Fautenberry “did not argue to the district court” the reasonable necessity of the services
affirming a district court's denial of inmate's § 3599(f) request for funds to obtain an expert opinion because the requested service was not \reasonably necessary\
affirming a district court’s denial of inmate’s § 3599(f) request for funds to obtain an expert opinion because the requested service was not “reasonably necessary”
“[Petitioner] advanced no evidence from which the district court could find that [the expert’s] evaluation would not be duplicative of information already available to the state executives entertaining his clemency petition.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Batchelder, Moore, Gilman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.