Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8647547
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Majors v. Tilton
No. 8647547 · Decided February 11, 2008
No. 8647547·Ninth Circuit · 2008·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
February 11, 2008
Citation
No. 8647547
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** 1. For the reasons given by the district court, the California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), when it affirmed Majors’s conviction. See Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262, 1274-75 (9th Cir.2005). 2. Because Majors had an opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in the state courts, we cannot grant habeas relief on that basis. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir.1996). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
For the reasons given by the district court, the California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply Jackson v.
Key Points
01For the reasons given by the district court, the California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply Jackson v.
022781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), when it affirmed Majors’s conviction.
03Because Majors had an opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in the state courts, we cannot grant habeas relief on that basis.
04This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir.
Frequently Asked Questions
For the reasons given by the district court, the California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply Jackson v.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Majors v. Tilton in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on February 11, 2008.
Use the citation No. 8647547 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.