Section 2254 - Judgments

Jun 13 2005 (FN)

Miller-el Vs. Dretke

Court: US Supreme Court

Decided on: Jun-13-2005

..... jurisdictional statutes its commands are addressed to courts rather than to individuals id at 344 section 2254 d speaks directly to federal courts when it states that a habeas application by a ..... except under the specified conditions emphasis added ibid rehnquist c j dissenting the strictures of 2254 d are not discretionary or waivable through aedpa congress sought to ensure that federal courts .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Apr 18 2000 (FN)

Williams Vs. Taylor

Court: US Supreme Court

Decided on: Apr-18-2000

..... a consequence petitioner contends aedpa erects no barrier to an evidentiary hearing in federal court section 2254 e 2 the provision which controls whether petitioner may receive an evidentiary hearing in federal ..... woodson s silence there was no basis for an investigation into stinnett s marriage history section 2254 e 2 does not apply to petitioner s related claims of juror bias and prosecutorial .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Jun 26 2003 (FN)

Wiggins Vs. Smith

Court: US Supreme Court

Decided on: Jun-26-2003

..... our precedents at the time of the state court s decision section 2254 provides d an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf ..... cannot be used to find fault in the state court opinion section 2254 d 1 means what it says and the court simply defies ..... counsel adequately investigated wiggins background the court also fails to observe 2254 e 1 s requirement that federal habeas courts respect state .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Jan 21 1981 (FN)

Sumner Vs. Mata

Court: US Supreme Court

Decided on: Jan-21-1981

..... on its authority specifically set forth in 28 u s c 2254 d section 2254 d provides d in any proceeding instituted in a federal ..... that its proceeding was not a hearing within the meaning of 2254 d section 2254 d applies to cases in which a state court of ..... procedure employed by the police violated respondent s due process rights section 2254 d requires a federal habeas court to defer to a determination .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

May 17 2010 (FN)

Wood Vs. Allen

Court: US Supreme Court

Decided on: May-17-2010

..... reviews the state court s findings for reasonableness under 2254 d 2 section 2254 e 1 comes into play according to wood only ..... 2008 the majority began by explaining the standard of review section 2254 d permits federal habeas relief only where the state courts ..... presented at trial woods subsequently sought federal habeas relief under 2254 the district court rejected all but his ineffective assistance of .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Apr 04 2011 (FN)

Cullen Vs. Pinholster

Court: US Supreme Court

Decided on: Apr-04-2011

..... his penalty phase ineffective assistance claim on the state court record section 2254 d prohibits habeas relief a section 2254 d applies to pinholster s claim because that claim was adjudicated ..... federal habeas scheme leaves primary responsibility with the state courts visciotti supra at 27 section 2254 b requires that prisoners must ordinarily exhaust state remedies before filing for federal .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Apr 18 2000 (FN)

Williams Vs. Taylor, Warden

Court: US Supreme Court

Decided on: Apr-18-2000

..... as judge easterbrook noted with respect to the phrase contrary to section 2254 d requires us to give state courts opinions a respectful reading ..... williams case is governed by the statute as amended by aedpa section 2254 now provides d an application for a writ of habeas corpus on ..... 1955 quoting montclair v ramsdell 107 u s 147 152 1883 section 2254 d 1 defines two categories of cases in which a state .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Nov 08 2011 (FN)

Greene Vs. Fisher

Court: US Supreme Court

Decided on: Nov-08-2011

..... we granted certiorari 563 u s 2011 ii nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp section 2254 d of title 28 u s c as amended by aedpa provides ..... decision last term in cullen v pinholster 563 u s established that 2254 d 1 s backward looking language requires an examination of the ..... relitigation bar imposed by aedpa neither abrogates or qualifies the other if 2254 d 1 was indeed pegged to teague it would authorize relief when .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Mar 22 1982 (FN)

Sumner Vs. Mata

Court: US Supreme Court

Decided on: Mar-22-1982

..... the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion so ordered footnote 1 section 2254 d provides d in any proceeding instituted in a federal court by an application for ..... s directive on remand the court of appeals clarified the basis for its original opinion section 2254 d was inapplicable because the federal court substantially agree d with the historical or basic .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Jan 15 1992 (FN)

Keeney Vs. Tamayo-reyes

Court: US Supreme Court

Decided on: Jan-15-1992

..... described categories of cases in which evidentiary hearings would be required section 2254 d however does not purport to govern the question of when ..... the evidence sumner v mata 449 u s 539 551 1981 section 2254 d is not in the strict sense a codification of our ..... attorney instead tried to direct the court s attention to various sections of the interpreter s deposition and attempted to point out where .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Section 2254 - Judgment Search Results