Citation network
Harbison Vs. Bell
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 01, 2009
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2008 Harbison V. BellSearch
-
Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Alito, J., joined. Harbison v. BellSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Harbison V. BellSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-8521 Edward Jerome Harbison, Petitioner V. RickySearch
-
Court held that state law does not authorize the appointment of state public defenders as clemency counsel. State v. JohnsonSearch
-
See, e.g. , McFarland v. ScottSearch
-
s detention. See generally Slack v. McDanielSearch
-
McLaughlin v. BronsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and cognitive impairments that was not presented during his trial or appeals. She also litigated a claim under Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
Hain v. MullinSearch
-
the authority of appointed federal counsel would be inconsistent with the basic purpose of the statute. Cf. McFarland v. ScottSearch
-
Footnote 10 See also Kansas v. MarshSearch
-
Roberts, C. J., Concurring in Judgment Harbison V. BellSearch
-
federal habeas petitioners to keep their federal counsel during subsequent state judicial proceedings. See Hain v. MullinSearch
-
for state clemency, but not for subsequent state court litigation. I therefore concur in the result. Harbison v. BellSearch
-
Thomas, J., Concurring in Judgment Harbison V. BellSearch
-
intent is found in the words it has chosen to use. See West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. CaseySearch
-
from among a range of potentially plausible, but likely inaccurate, interpretations of a statute. Eldred v. AshcroftSearch
-
see also TVA v. HillSearch
-
Pavelic & LeFlore v. MarvelSearch
-
Lamie v. UnitedSearch
-
internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted). Accordingly, I concur in the judgment. Harbison v. BellSearch
-
Opinion of Scalia, J. Harbison V. BellSearch
-
federal proceedings only, even where the statute contains no such express limitation. Cf. Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. MayorSearch
-
in order that they may thereafter (subsequently) return to state court to exhaust their claims. See Rhines v. WeberSearch
-
proceedings are complete. See Harbison v. StateSearch
-
petition, and return to state court along with his federally funded lawyer. Indeed, under our decision in McFarland v. ScottSearch
-
Edward Jerome Harbison, Petitioner V. RickySearch
-
State v. JohnsonSearch
-
McFarland v. ScottSearch
-
Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
Cf. McFarland v. ScottSearch
-
See Hain v. MullinSearch
-
See West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. CaseySearch
-
TVA v. HillSearch
-
Tiernan v. MayorSearch
-
See Rhines v. WeberSearch
-
See Harbison v. StateSearch
-
United States v. MortonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial