Case Citator › United States v. Murleen Kay Kunzman

United States v. Murleen Kay Kunzman

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
125 F.3d 1363
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
72 of 72
Citing cases (total)
239
Treatment dates
2000
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. United States v. Murleen Kay Kunzman was displaced in part on certificates of appealability. All 72 flagged citations were read.
More on how this was screened

Slack v. McDaniel later held that a petitioner who begins an appeal after AEDPA took effect needs a certificate of appealability even if the petition was filed before AEDPA; this contradicts Kunzman's opposite rule. The Supreme Court did not name Kunzman, but United States v. Fields — — filed 2008-02-25 — Tenth Circuit, expressly identifies Kunzman as “abrogated on other grounds by Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000).” Fields reports the Supreme Court's act; the treatment below is anchored on Slack itself. The other reviewed opinions applied Kunzman or reported its overruling of earlier cases.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

239 later cases cite United States v. Murleen Kay Kunzman; 72 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on United States v. Murleen Kay Kunzman?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court held that AEDPA's certificate-of-appealability requirement applies to appeals begun after its effective date, including appeals from petitions filed before AEDPA, displacing Kunzman's contrary certificate holding.

    Slack v. McDaniel · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    First, when a habeas corpus petitioner seeks to initiate an appeal of the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition after April 24, 1996 (the effective date of AEDPA), the right to appeal is governed by the certificate of appealability (COA) requirements now found at 28 U. S. C. § 2253(c) (1994 ed., Supp. III). This is true whether the habeas corpus petition was filed in the district court before or after AEDPA’s effective date.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Murleen Kay Kunzman and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace