stating that "relief is available under § 2254(d)'s unreasonable-application clause if, and only if, it is so obvious that a clearly established rule applies to a given set of facts that there could be no "fairminded disagreement" on the question," citing Harrington
Summary of this case from Guevara v. RaemischNo. 03-1157.
March 22, 2004.
C.A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 346 F. 3d 1160.
stating that "relief is available under § 2254(d)'s unreasonable-application clause if, and only if, it is so obvious that a clearly established rule applies to a given set of facts that there could be no "fairminded disagreement" on the question," citing Harrington
Summary of this case from Guevara v. RaemischFull title:NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF PITTSBURGH v. TERRA INDUSTRIES, INC.…
Court:U.S.
Date published: Mar 22, 2004
Several courts in other jurisdictions have found the appropriate meaning of the phrase “physical injury” in…
Mathis v. Attorney Gen. of N.J.Federal law is clearly established for these purposes where it is clearly expressed in "only the holdings, as…