17 Cited authorities

Harrington v. Richter
562 U.S. 86 (2011) Cited 26,557 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that AEDPA deference applies even when state court issues summary ruling
Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 159,542 times 179 Legal Analyses
Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"
Williams v. Taylor
529 U.S. 362 (2000) Cited 37,925 times 65 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel
526 U.S. 838 (1999) Cited 17,930 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to ensure exhaustion a petitioner must present their claims throughout "one complete round of the State's established appellate review process."
Lockyer v. Andrade
538 U.S. 63 (2003) Cited 11,142 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that pro se prisoner's timely motion for an extension to file an appeal was the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal
Taylor v. Maddox
366 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 1,671 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state court's clear misapprehension or misstatement of the record that "goes to a material factual issue that is central to petitioner's claim" and a state court's "failure to consider and weigh relevant evidence" that is "highly probative and central to the petitioner's claim" can render "the resulting factual finding unreasonable"
Peterson v. Lampert
319 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 1,071 times
Holding that the circumstances were insufficient to alert the state appellate court that petitioner was seeking review of a particular federal issue
Paulino v. Castro
371 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 353 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that California's rule requiring that a party make a contemporaneous objection to preserve an issue for appeal is an adequate and independent state rule
Hedlund v. Ryan
750 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 31 times
Finding no Eddings error
Jamison v. Consolidated Utilities, Inc.
576 P.2d 97 (Alaska 1978) Cited 74 times
Discussing relevant criteria for quasi-estoppel claim, including whether party asserting inconsistent position gained advantage through first position, magnitude of inconsistency, changed circumstances, whether inconsistency was relied on by party to his detriment, and whether first assertion made with full knowledge of facts
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 205,370 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"

Saddler v. Conant

17 Cited authorities

Holding that AEDPA deference applies even when state court issues summary ruling

Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation

Holding that, to ensure exhaustion a petitioner must present their claims throughout "one complete round of the State's established appellate review process."

Holding that pro se prisoner's timely motion for an extension to file an appeal was the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal

Holding that the circumstances were insufficient to alert the state appellate court that petitioner was seeking review of a particular federal issue

Holding that California's rule requiring that a party make a contemporaneous objection to preserve an issue for appeal is an adequate and independent state rule

Finding no Eddings error

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"