Premo v. Moore: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Swatjester (talk | contribs) subcat |
Swatjester (talk | contribs) refs |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
'''Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Moore''' was a 2011 [[United States Supreme Court]] case involving the right of individuals to federal [[habeas corpus]] relief on state-law claims. In an 8-0 ruling ([[Elena Kagan|Justice Kagan]] did not participate), the court held that 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 [[federalism|federal law]], as determined by" the Court. |
'''Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Moore''' was a 2011 [[United States Supreme Court]] case involving the right of individuals to federal [[habeas corpus]] relief on state-law claims. In an 8-0 ruling ([[Elena Kagan|Justice Kagan]] did not participate), the court held that 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 [[federalism|federal law]], as determined by" the Court.<ref name="LII"/>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-658.ZS.html]</ref> |
||
==External links== |
|||
*[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-658.ZS.html Cornell LII text of opinion] |
|||
==References== |
|||
{{Reflist}} |
|||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court]] |
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court]] |
||
Revision as of 22:33, 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 | |
Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Moore was a 2011 United States Supreme Court case involving the right of individuals to federal habeas corpus relief on state-law claims. In an 8-0 ruling (Justice Kagan did not participate), the court held that 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.[1][1]</ref>
External links
References
 | This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
  | This article relating to law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |