Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Edwards Vs. Carpenter

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 25, 2000

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

31 entries 7 linked 24 unlinked
Show
  1. Coleman Vs. Thompson US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1991
  2. Ford Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1991
  3. Murray Vs. Carrier US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1986
  4. North Carolina Vs. Alford US Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1970
  5. O'Sullivan Vs. Boerckel US Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1999
  6. Darr Vs. Burford US Supreme Court · Apr 03, 1950
  7. Schlup Vs. Delo US Supreme Court · Oct 03, 1994
  8. U.S. 446 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Edwards, Warden V. Carpenter
    Search
  9. standard are grounded in comity and federalism concerns, Coleman v. Thompson
    Search
  10. U. S. 722 , 730, and apply whether the default occurred at trial, on appeal, or on state collateral attack, Murray v. Carrier
    Search
  11. He entered a guilty plea while maintaining his innocence-a procedure we held to be constitutional in North Carolina v. Alford
    Search
  12. G. Summers of Tennessee, Jan Graham of Utah, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, Christine Q Gregoire of Washington, Darrell v. McGraw
    Search
  13. after the 90-day period allowed.2 The Ohio Supreme Court, in a one-sentence per curiam opinion, affirmed. State v. Carpenter
    Search
  14. Rule 26(B)'s inconsistent application by the Ohio courts rendered it inadequate to bar federal habeas review. See Ford v. Georgia
    Search
  15. that respondent's appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective under the test established in Strickland v. Washington
    Search
  16. the-evidence claim, whether or not the ineffective-assistance claim itself had been procedurally defaulted. Carpenter v. Mohr
    Search
  17. apply alike whether the default in question occurred at trial, on appeal, or on state collateral attack, Mur ray v. Carrier
    Search
  18. before his procedurally defaulted ineffective-assistance claim will excuse the default of another claim. Stewart v. LaGrand
    Search
  19. U. S., at 732. We again considered the interplay between exhaustion and procedural default last Term in O'Sullivan v. Boerckel
    Search
  20. Id., at 854 (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (emphasis added) (quoting Darr v. Burford
    Search
  21. state-law ground justifies the prisoner's detention, regardless of the federal claim. 455 See Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  22. James v. Kentucky
    Search
  23. See, e. g., Schlup v. Delo
    Search
  24. in the same manner. Murray v. Carrier
    Search
  25. Syllabus Edwards, Warden V. Carpenter
    Search
  26. State v. Carpenter
    Search
  27. See Ford v. Georgia
    Search
  28. Strickland v. Washington
    Search
  29. Carpenter v. Mohr
    Search
  30. Stewart v. LaGrand
    Search
  31. See Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial