Citation network
Teague Vs. Lane
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 288 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Teague v. LaneSearch
-
U.S. 288 (1989) Teague v. LaneSearch
-
argued that the opinions of several Justices concurring in and dissenting from the denial of certiorari in McCray v. NewSearch
-
York, 461 U.S. 961, had invited a reexamination of Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
Court of Appeals voted to rehear the case en banc, and postponed rehearing until after this Court's decision in Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
of Appeals then held that petitioner could not benefit from the Batson rule because, in the meantime, Allen v. HardySearch
-
or on direct appeal, he forfeited review of the claim in collateral proceedings in the state courts. Under Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
Justice O'Connor, Joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy, Concluded in Parts IV and V. ThatSearch
-
Mackey v. UnitedSearch
-
which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously diminished. An examination of the decision in Taylor v. LouisianaSearch
-
urged by petitioner is an acceptable application in collateral proceedings of the theories embraced in United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
U. S. 537 , Shea v. LouisianaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 51 , and Griffith v. KentuckySearch
-
U. S. 316 -317. JUSTICE BLACKMUN concurred in the result insofar as petitioner's claim based on Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
petitioner's conviction should not be set aside for, as a matter of stare decisis, the Court's opinion in Allen v. HardySearch
-
of his fundamental fairness exception. JUSTICE STEVENS concluded in Part II that, since petitioner's claim under Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
with respect to Parts IV and V, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, and JUSTICE KENNEDY join. In Taylor v. LouisianaSearch
-
representative of the community. The Illinois Appellate Court rejected petitioner's fair cross-section claim. People v. TeagueSearch
-
and argued that the opinions of several Justices concurring in and dissenting from the denial of certiorari in McCray v. NewSearch
-
York, 461 U.S. 961 (1983), had invited a reexamination of Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
the Court of Appeals voted to rehear the case en banc, and the panel opinion was vacated. United States ex rel. Teague v. LaneSearch
-
F.2d 1332 (CA7 1985) (en banc) (Cudahy, J., dissenting). Rehearing was postponed until after our decision in Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
was decided, the Court of Appeals held that petitioner could not benefit from the rule in that case because Allen v. HardySearch
-
Id. at 476 U. S. 97 . In Allen v. HardySearch
-
a portion of Swain. 478 U.S. at 478 U. S. 258 . Employing the retroactivity standard of Linkletter v. WalkerSearch
-
U. S. 482 , 260 U. S. 490 (1923) (Holmes, J.). Accord, Hughes Tool Co. v. TransSearch
-
Brown v. AllenSearch
-
Maryland v. BaltimoreSearch
-
accompanying the denial of certiorari cannot have the same effect as decisions on the merits. We find that Allen v. HardySearch
-
Petitioner 35 (citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 476 U. S. 101 , n. (WHITE, J., concurring)). See Weathersby v. MorrisSearch
-
People v. GainesSearch
-
et seq. (1987), unless fundamental fairness requires that the default be overlooked. People v. BrownSearch
-
The fundamental fairness exception is a narrow one, and has been applied in limited circumstances. Compare People v. GoergerSearch
-
People v. IkerdSearch
-
and People v. HambySearch
-
counsel to raise on direct appeal). It is clear that collateral relief would be unavailable to petitioner. See People v. BeamonSearch
-
b) with respect to the Swain claim. See Engle v. IsaacSearch
-
Williams v. BrantleySearch
-
F.2d 1383, 1385-1386 (CA7 1974). Under Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
federal habeas corpus proceeding unless he can show cause for the default and prejudice resulting therefrom. See Engle v. IsaacSearch
-
Instead, he argues that the claim is not barred because it was addressed by the Illinois Appellate Court. Cf. Caldwell v. MississippiSearch
-
a prosecutor to be questioned about his use of peremptory challenges once he volunteers an explanation. See People v. TeagueSearch
-
and do not address its merits. Our application of the procedural default rule here is consistent with Harris v. ReedSearch
-
citations and internal quotations omitted). The rule announced in Harris v. ReedSearch
-
the question of retroactivity later, when a different defendant sought the benefit of that rule. See, e.g., Brown v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 323 (1980) (addressing retroactivity of Burch v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 505 (1973) (addressing retroactivity of Waller v. FloridaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial