Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Harris Vs. Reed

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 22, 1989

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

72 entries 8 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. Wainwright Vs. Sykes US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1977
  2. Murray Vs. Carrier US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1986
  3. Maryland Vs. Garrison US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1987
  4. New York Vs. Class US Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1986
  5. Teague Vs. Lane US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1989
  6. Fox Film Corp. Vs. Muller US Supreme Court · Dec 09, 1935
  7. Castille Vs. Peoples US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1989
  8. Fay Vs. Noia US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  9. U.S. 255 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Harris v. Reed
    Search
  10. U.S. 255 (1989) Harris v. Reed
    Search
  11. of Michigan v. Long
    Search
  12. the Illinois Appellate Court had held this claim to be waived under Illinois law, this Court's decision in Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  13. confusion among the courts evidently stems from a failure to recognize that the procedural default rule of Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  14. basis for the court's decision. See, e.g., Fox Film Corp. v. Muller
    Search
  15. Murdock v. City
    Search
  16. state ground for its judgment may be rendered difficult by ambiguity in the state court's opinion. In Michigan v. Long
    Search
  17. of whether the disputed state law ground is substantive (as it was in Long ) or procedural, as in Caldwell v. Mississippi
    Search
  18. applies on federal habeas. 433 U.S. at 433 U. S. 81 , 433 U. S. 87 . See also Ulster County Court v. Allen
    Search
  19. Id. at 477 U. S. 495 , quoting Engle v. Isaac
    Search
  20. U. S. 107 , 456 U. S. 135 (1982). See also Smith v. Murray
    Search
  21. if the last state court rendering a judgment in the case rests its judgment on the procedural default. See Caldwell v. Mississippi
    Search
  22. Ulster County Court v. Allen
    Search
  23. Habeas review thus presents the same problem of ambiguity that this Court resolved in Michigan v. Long
    Search
  24. law ground, this Court may address a federal issue considered by the state court. We applied that rule in Caldwell v. Mississippi
    Search
  25. has been alert in recognizing that federal habeas review touches upon these significant state interests. Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  26. rely on waiver as a ground for rejecting any aspect of petitioner's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Michigan v. Long
    Search
  27. Murray v. Carrier
    Search
  28. U. S. 478 (1986), and Smith v. Murray
    Search
  29. Hardin v. Black
    Search
  30. whether state court denied relief because of a procedural default or because of its view of the merits), with Brasier v. Douglas
    Search
  31. the state court alternatively relied on a procedural bar), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1023 (1987), and with Shepard v. Foltz
    Search
  32. upon a procedural bar, the federal court should examine the arguments presented to the state court). See also Mann v. Dugger
    Search
  33. F.2d 1471, 1487-1489 (CA11 1987) (Clark, J., specially concurring) (the Michigan v. Long
    Search
  34. judges, indeed, have analyzed the problem in terms of the adequate and independent state ground doctrine. See Meadows v. Holland
    Search
  35. Mann v. Dugger
    Search
  36. Herndon v. Georgia
    Search
  37. Ake v. Oklahoma
    Search
  38. Johnson v. Mississippi
    Search
  39. requirement. See, e.g., Michigan v. Chesternut
    Search
  40. Delaware v. Van
    Search
  41. be presented to a state court if it is clear that the state court would hold the claim procedurally barred. Castille v. Peoples
    Search
  42. basis for the state court's judgment, even when the state court also relies on federal law. See Fox Film Corp. v. Muller
    Search
  43. is no basis for a federal habeas court's refusing to consider the merits of the federal claim. See Ulster County Court v. Allen
    Search
  44. U.S. at 463 U. S. 1040 -1041. JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring. In view of my dissent in Michigan v. Long
    Search
  45. is unique virtue in applying the rule of that case to the problem presented by this case. My dissent in Michigan v. Long
    Search
  46. See Delaware v. Van
    Search
  47. Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673 , 475 U. S. 692 (1986) (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (quoting King Bridge Co. v. Otoe
    Search
  48. U. S. 225 , 120 U. S. 226 (1887)). Second, in its original form, the presumption adopted in Michigan v. Long
    Search
  49. state procedural bar constitutes an adequate and independent state ground for denying relief. As our decisions in Fay v. Noia
    Search
  50. U. S. 391 , 372 U. S. 426 -435 (1963), and Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial