Citation network
Panetti Vs. Quarterman
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 28, 2007
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Syllabus October Term, 2006 Panetti V. QuartermanSearch
-
to comply with Texas law and were constitutionally inadequate in light of the procedural requirements mandated by Ford v. WainwrightSearch
-
or raise the claim in a first federal habeas application even though it is premature. Stewart v. Martinez-VillarealSearch
-
argument in this case that petitioner proceeded in a manner that could be considered an abuse of the writ. Cf. Felker v. TurpinSearch
-
s opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment in Ford controls, see Marks v. UnitedSearch
-
and the federal court must then resolve the claim without the deference AEDPA otherwise requires. See, e.g., Wiggins v. SmithSearch
-
Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined. Panetti v. QuartermanSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Panetti V. QuartermanSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-6407 Scott Louis Panetti, Petitioner V. NathanielSearch
-
on direct appeal and through state habeas proceedings. The Texas courts denied his requests for relief. See Panetti v. StateSearch
-
Crim. App., May 20, 1998). This Court twice denied a petition for certiorari. Panetti v. TexasSearch
-
Panetti v. TexasSearch
-
District Court for the Western District of Texas. His claims were again rejected, both by the District Court, Panetti v. JohnsonSearch
-
SS (2001), and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Panetti v. CockrellSearch
-
Fed. Appx. 78 (2003) (judgt. order), and we again denied a petition for certiorari, Panetti v. DretkeSearch
-
s finding of competency. Panetti v. DretkeSearch
-
Id ., at 711. The Court of Appeals affirmed, Panetti v. DretkeSearch
-
State nevertheless maintains that its rule would not foreclose prisoners from raising Ford claims. Under Stewart v. Martinez-VillarealSearch
-
the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214. See Slack v. McDanielSearch
-
see also Felker v. TurpinSearch
-
U. S. 3 22, 337 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Cf. Day v. McDonoughSearch
-
U. S. 269 , 275 (2005). See also Castro v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S., at 380, 381. See also Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Duncan v. WalkerSearch
-
cf. Granberry v. GreerSearch
-
Barnard v. CollinsSearch
-
See generally McCleskey v. ZantSearch
-
procedure, offered a more limited holding. When there is no majority opinion, the narrower holding controls. See Marks v. UnitedSearch
-
to the contrary, that even a general standard may be applied in an unreasonable manner. See, e.g ., Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
court decision both contrary to and involving an unreasonable application of the standard set forth in Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
is satisfied. A federal court must then resolve the claim without the deference AEDPA otherwise requires. See Wiggins v. SmithSearch
-
determinations). And there is precedent to guide a court conducting Eighth Amendment analysis. See, e.g ., Roper v. SimmonsSearch
-
and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Panetti v. QuartermanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial