Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act) Fisher , 565 U.S. 34 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which sets the standard of review for habeas corpus petitions brought in federal court to challenge state court convictions.
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) (1) Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the standard for when a federal court can grant habeas corpus relief to overturn a criminal conviction based on the state court's misapplication of established federal law. [1] At issue was whether a criminal defendant's ...
Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that because Brumfield satisfied 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) (2)’s requirements, [1] he was entitled to have his Atkins v. Virginia [2] claim considered on the merits in federal court.
Carl Thompson, Petitioner v. Patrick Keohane, Warden, et al. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) does not apply in custody rulings for Miranda. Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (1995), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) does not apply in custody rulings for Miranda.
e. Title 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) is the portion of the United States Code (federal statutory law) that governs the federal judicial system. It is divided into six parts: Part I: Organization of Courts. Part II: Department of Justice. Part III: Court Officers and Employees.
The Rooker–Feldman doctrine is related to the Anti-Injunction Act, a federal statute which prohibits federal courts from issuing injunctions which stay lawsuits that are pending in state courts. Title 28, United States Code, Section 2283 reads: A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court ...
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986), [1] was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that clarified the relationship of the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to other constitutional rights in criminal procedure. In this case, evidence against the defendant was probably seized illegally, violating the Fourth ...
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012), [1] was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that an interrogation of a prisoner was not a custodial interrogation per se, and certainly it was not "clearly established federal law" that it was custodial, as would be required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).