10 Cited authorities

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (2000) Cited 77,109 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that a habeas petitioner seeking to appeal a district court's denial of habeas relief on procedural grounds must not only make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right but also must demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (2003) Cited 48,375 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government's exclusion of 10 out of 14, or 91%, of Black prospective jurors—along with the state's unreliable justifications—showed purposeful discrimination
Spencer v. Kemna
523 U.S. 1 (1998) Cited 5,567 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an issue is moot when "there is nothing for us to remedy"
North Carolina v. Rice
404 U.S. 244 (1971) Cited 1,553 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal courts must resolve questions of mootness before assuming jurisdiction
Okereke v. U.S.
307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) Cited 1,592 times
Holding that the petitioner could not qualify for the escape hatch where he brought an Apprendi challenge to his sentence and did not claim factual innocence of the underlying crime of conviction
Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp.
77 F.3d 690 (3d Cir. 1996) Cited 1,132 times
Finding a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief moot where there was "no hint in the record of any present or imminent future harm from the [defendant's] alleged conduct"
Virsnieks v. Smith
521 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2008) Cited 318 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that because the Supreme Court had "not delimited comprehensively" the circumstances under which a general rule applied, there was "no Supreme Court precedent on point" and thus there could be "no habeas relief"
Khodara Environmental, Inc. v. Beckman
237 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2001) Cited 142 times
Holding that facial constitutional challenges — on equal protection and other grounds — were mooted by an amendment that significantly broadened the statute's scope and thus alleviated these facial concerns
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 203,944 times 341 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"
Section 2253 - Appeal
28 U.S.C. § 2253 Cited 114,539 times 58 Legal Analyses
Conditioning the taking of an appeal on the issuance of a "certificate of appealability"

Andrews v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

10 Cited authorities

Holding that the government's exclusion of 10 out of 14, or 91%, of Black prospective jurors—along with the state's unreliable justifications—showed purposeful discrimination

Holding that an issue is moot when "there is nothing for us to remedy"

Holding that federal courts must resolve questions of mootness before assuming jurisdiction

Holding that the petitioner could not qualify for the escape hatch where he brought an Apprendi challenge to his sentence and did not claim factual innocence of the underlying crime of conviction

Finding a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief moot where there was "no hint in the record of any present or imminent future harm from the [defendant's] alleged conduct"

Holding that because the Supreme Court had "not delimited comprehensively" the circumstances under which a general rule applied, there was "no Supreme Court precedent on point" and thus there could be "no habeas relief"

Holding that facial constitutional challenges — on equal protection and other grounds — were mooted by an amendment that significantly broadened the statute's scope and thus alleviated these facial concerns

Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

Conditioning the taking of an appeal on the issuance of a "certificate of appealability"