Harbison Vs. Bell - Cites

32 entries

• Herrera Vs. Collins
• Wilkinson Vs. Dotson
• Dretke Vs. Haley
• Pliler Vs. Ford
• SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 HARBISON V. BELL
• Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Alito, J., joined. Harbison v. Bell
• OPINION OF THE COURT HARBISON V. BELL
• SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NO. 07-8521 EDWARD JEROME HARBISON, PETITIONER v. RICKY
• Court held that state law does not authorize the appointment of state public defenders as clemency counsel. State v. Johnson
• See, e.g. , McFarland v. Scott
• s detention. See generally Slack v. McDaniel
• McLaughlin v. Bronson
• and cognitive impairments that was not presented during his trial or appeals. She also litigated a claim under Brady v. Maryland
• Hain v. Mullin
• the authority of appointed federal counsel would be inconsistent with the basic purpose of the statute. Cf. McFarland v. Scott
• Footnote 10 See also Kansas v. Marsh
• ROBERTS, C. J., CONCURRING IN JUDGMENT HARBISON V. BELL
• federal habeas petitioners to keep their federal counsel during subsequent state judicial proceedings. See Hain v. Mullin
• for state clemency, but not for subsequent state court litigation. I therefore concur in the result. Harbison v. Bell
• THOMAS, J., CONCURRING IN JUDGMENT HARBISON V. BELL
• intent is found in the words it has chosen to use. See West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey
• from among a range of potentially plausible, but likely inaccurate, interpretations of a statute. Eldred v. Ashcroft
• see also TVA v. Hill
• Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel
• Lamie v. United
• internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted). Accordingly, I concur in the judgment. Harbison v. Bell
• OPINION OF SCALIA, J. HARBISON V. BELL
• federal proceedings only, even where the statute contains no such express limitation. Cf. Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor
• in order that they may thereafter (subsequently) return to state court to exhaust their claims. See Rhines v. Weber
• proceedings are complete. See Harbison v. State
• petition, and return to state court along with his federally funded lawyer. Indeed, under our decision in McFarland v. Scott
• United States v. Morton

← Back to judgment