Citation network
Bradshaw Vs. Stumpf
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 13, 2005
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2004 Bradshaw V. StumpfSearch
-
in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined. Bradshaw v. StumpfSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Bradshaw V. StumpfSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-637 Margaret Bradshaw, Warden, Petitioner V. JohnSearch
-
s case, and the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed, as did the Ohio Supreme Court. State v. StumpfSearch
-
Stumpf v. MitchellSearch
-
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), we review his claims under the standards of the pre-AEDPA habeas statute. See Lindh v. MurphySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
s habeas claims were barred as requiring announcement of a new rule, we do not apply the rule of Teague v. LaneSearch
-
U. S. 288 (1989), to this case. See Schiro v. FarleySearch
-
Brady v. UnitedSearch
-
s elements, this standard is not met and the plea is invalid. Henderson v. MorganSearch
-
State v. ScottSearch
-
if they show either that he made the unfavorable plea on the constitutionally defective advice of counsel, see Tollett v. HendersonSearch
-
statutes refer to the versions of those statutes in effect in 1984, at the time of the crime and trial. Bradshaw v. StumpfSearch
-
Souter, J., Concurring Bradshaw V. StumpfSearch
-
nor is it a claim that the prosecution deliberately deceived or attempted to deceive either trial court, as in Mooney v. HolohanSearch
-
nor does it implicate the rule that inconsistent jury verdicts may be enforced, United States v. PowellSearch
-
Dunn v. UnitedSearch
-
Jacobs v. ScottSearch
-
s statement in turn echoed the more general one expressed by Justice Sutherland in Berger v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 764 , 774 (1990) (quoting Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
s opinion. As the Court notes, the State has not argued that Teague v. LaneSearch
-
Horn v. BanksSearch
-
s traditions have long foreclosed, see Herrera v. CollinsSearch
-
Margaret Bradshaw, Warden, Petitioner V. JohnSearch
-
the Ohio Supreme Court. State v. StumpfSearch
-
See Lindh v. MurphySearch
-
of Teague v. LaneSearch
-
See Schiro v. FarleySearch
-
Henderson v. MorganSearch
-
Berger v. UnitedSearch
-
Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
United States v. PowellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial