Premo v. Moore: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
stub-sort |
Darkskynet (talk | contribs) |
||
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 name | Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Moore |
Case history | |
Prior | Appeal from order of habeas relief by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
Subsequent | Reversed 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 | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor |
Concurrence | Ginsburg |
Laws applied | |
6th Amendment, 5th Amendment, right to adequate assistance of counsel, habeas corpus |