Premo v. Moore: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
m Dated {{Unreferenced}}. (Build p605) |
Swatjester (talk | contribs) removing unnecessary template brackets |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --> |
|||
{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Moore|timestamp=20110207112307|year=2011|month=February|day=7|substed=yes}} |
{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Moore|timestamp=20110207112307|year=2011|month=February|day=7|substed=yes}} |
||
<!-- For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi|page=Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Moore|date=7 February 2011|result='''keep'''}} --> |
<!-- For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi|page=Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Moore|date=7 February 2011|result='''keep'''}} --> |
Revision as of 20:51, 7 February 2011
An editor has nominated this article for deletion. You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion, which will decide whether or not to retain it. |
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 |