Citation network
Lindh Vs. Murphy
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 14, 1997
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
-
U.S. 320 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Lindh V. MurphySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
entitlement to relief-to pending cases would not have a retroactive effect barring its application under Landgraf v. USISearch
-
together and were being considered simultaneously when the language raising the implication was inserted. See Field v. MansSearch
-
apply to pending applications like Lindh's, id., at 861-863, it turned to this Court's recent decision in Landgraf v. USISearch
-
d) applies to pending, chapter 153 cases conflicts with the holdings of Edens v. HanniganSearch
-
F.3d 1109 , 1112, n. 1 (CAlO 1996), Boria v. KeaneSearch
-
F.3d 36 , 37-38 (CA2 1996) (per curiam), and Jeffries v. WoodSearch
-
c) case of Hunter v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Hunter v. UnitedSearch
-
(Titles v. andSearch
-
in the disfavored retroactive way,4 they do serve to make it clear as a general matter that 4 In United States v. NordicSearch
-
involved statutory language that was so clear that it could sustain only one interpretation. See Graham & Foster v. GoodcellSearch
-
Automobile Club of Mich. v. CommissionerSearch
-
periods in which otherwise barred claims could be brought under the new substantive law). Cf. Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. FloridaSearch
-
c) distinguishes it. Cf. United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
ask is whether Congress has expressly resolved whether the provision in question applies to pending cases. Landgraf v. USISearch
-
see also Beazell v. OhioSearch
-
represents a change in the exhaustion doctrine as articulated in Rose v. LundySearch
-
to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to rule on the new claim without first exhausting state remedies as Rose v. LundySearch
-
the standard under which that prior judgment is evaluated, and is in that sense entirely procedural. Cf. Horning v. DistrictSearch
-
see also Duplex Printing Press Co. v. DeeringSearch
-
American Steel Foundries v. Tri-CitySearch
-
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. BonjornoSearch
-
Habeas does not compensate for past wrongful incarceration, nor does it punish the State for imposing it. See Lane v. WilliamsSearch
-
habeas is a challenge to unlawful custody, and when the writ issues it prevents further illegal custody. See Preiser v. RodriguezSearch
-
see 3 Although in Hughes Aircraft Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
jurisdiction-creating statutes, see id., at 950-951, nothing in Hughes 343 also Bruner v. UnitedSearch
-
Assessors v. OsbornesSearch
-
Insurance Co. v. RitchieSearch
-
to the rights or obligations of the parties.''' Landgraf, supra, at 274 (quoting Republic Nat. Bank of Miami v. UnitedSearch
-
d) is itself jurisdictional. See Brown v. AllenSearch
-
quoting Preiser v. RodriguezSearch
-
cf. Arkansas v. FarmSearch
-
changes to all pending cases. This has been true both of statutory changes in the scope of the writ, see, e. g., Gusik v. SchilderSearch
-
applying different section of the AEDPA to pending case), and of judicial changes, see, e. g., Stone v. PowellSearch
-
Syllabus Lindh V. MurphySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial