Us Supreme Court Court December 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hardy Vs. Cross
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
Hardy v. Cross - 11-74 (2011) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MARCUS HARDY, WARDEN v. IRVING L. CROSS on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit No. 1174.Decided December 12, 2011 Per Curiam. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. 2254, imposes a highly def- erential standard for evaluating state-court rulings and demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt. Felkner v. Jackson, 562 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (per curiam) (slip op., at 4) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, the Court of Appeals departed from this standard, and we therefore grant certiorari and reverse. Irving Cross was tried for kidnaping and sexually assaulting A. S. at knifepoint. Cross claimed that A. S. had consented to sex in exchange for money and drugs. Despite her avowed fear of taking the stand, A. S. te...
Judulang Vs. Holder
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
Judulang v. Holder NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus JUDULANG v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 10694.Argued October 12, 2011Decided December 12, 2011 Federal immigration law governs both the exclusion of aliens from admission to this country and the deportation of aliens previously admitted. Before 1996, these two kinds of action occurred in different procedural settings; since then, the Government has employed a unified removal proceeding for exclusions and deportations alike. But the immigration laws have always provided separate lists of ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›