Jump to content

Premo v. Moore: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
stub-sort
clean up, added orphan tag using AWB
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Orphan|date=January 2011}}

{{SCOTUSCase
{{SCOTUSCase
|Litigants=Premo (for Oregon State Penitentiary) v. Moore
|Litigants=Premo (for Oregon State Penitentiary) v. Moore
Line 23: Line 25:
|LawsApplied=[[6th Amendment]], [[5th Amendment]], [[right to adequate assistance of counsel]], [[habeas corpus]]
|LawsApplied=[[6th Amendment]], [[5th Amendment]], [[right to adequate assistance of counsel]], [[habeas corpus]]
}}
}}



[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
Line 29: Line 30:
[[Category:United States criminal case law]]
[[Category:United States criminal case law]]
[[Category:United States constitutional case law]]
[[Category:United States constitutional case law]]


{{case-law-stub}}
{{case-law-stub}}
{{US-law-stub}}
{{US-law-stub}}

Revision as of 05:59, 21 January 2011

Premo (for Oregon State Penitentiary) v. Moore
Decided January 19, 2011
Full case namePremo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Moore
Case history
PriorAppeal from order of habeas relief by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
SubsequentReversed and remanded.
Holding
Habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim a state-court has found on the merits unless the state-court decision denying relief involves an "unreasonable application" of "clearly established federal law, as determined by" the Court.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor
ConcurrenceGinsburg
Laws applied
6th Amendment, 5th Amendment, right to adequate assistance of counsel, habeas corpus