From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saporito v. Astrue

U.S.
Jan 7, 2008
552 U.S. 1116 (2008)

Summary

holding that Teague does not “constrain the authority of state courts to give broader effect to new rules of criminal procedure than is required by that opinion”

Summary of this case from Jones v. Davis

Opinion

No. 07–7418.

2008-01-7

Richard L. SAPORITO, petitioner, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security.


Case below, 248 Fed.Appx. 311.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.


Summaries of

Saporito v. Astrue

U.S.
Jan 7, 2008
552 U.S. 1116 (2008)

holding that Teague does not “constrain the authority of state courts to give broader effect to new rules of criminal procedure than is required by that opinion”

Summary of this case from Jones v. Davis

holding that Teague does not “constrain the authority of state courts to give broader effect to new rules of criminal procedure than is required by that opinion”

Summary of this case from Jones v. Davis

holding that state can waive Teague non-retroactivity argument by not asserting it in a timely manner

Summary of this case from Young v. Conway

holding that states can adopt their own rules about retroactivity as matter of procedure

Summary of this case from In re Barber

holding that Teague was not intended “to limit a state court's authority to grant relief for violations of new rules of constitutional law when reviewing its own State's convictions”

Summary of this case from Ramirez v. State

holding that Teague does not constrain “the authority of state courts to give broader effect to new rules of criminal procedure than is required by that opinion”

Summary of this case from Ex parte Maxwell

holding states are not bound by retroactivity analysis of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334, and may grant broader retroactive relief for federal constitutional violations in state court proceedings

Summary of this case from State v. Johnson

holding that Teague does not constrain “the authority of state courts to give broader effect to new rules of criminal procedure than is required by that opinion”

Summary of this case from Ex parte De Los Reyes

holding that the law of retroactivity is controlled by state law because retroactivity is “primarily concerned, not with the question whether a constitutional violation occurred, but with the availability or nonavailability of remedies”

Summary of this case from State v. Jeffries

holding that the non-retroactivity doctrine adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Teague was not intended "to limit a state court's authority to grant relief for violations of new rules of constitutional law when reviewing its own State's convictions"

Summary of this case from Kersey v. Hatch

holding that state courts may “give broader effect to new rules of criminal procedure than is required by [Teague ]”

Summary of this case from Toye v. State

recognizing that, "[o]riginally, criminal defendants whose convictions were final were entitled to federal habeas relief only if the court that rendered the judgment under which they were in custody lacked jurisdiction to do so."

Summary of this case from Reber v. Steele

recognizing that, "[o]riginally, criminal defendants whose convictions were final were entitled to federal habeas relief only if the court that rendered the judgment under which they were in custody lacked jurisdiction to do so."

Summary of this case from Yellowbear v. Wyoming Attorney General

noting this language is "an authorization to adjust the scope of the writ in accordance with equitable and prudential considerations"

Summary of this case from Gonzalez-Alarcon v. Macias

explaining that "[a]lthough Teague was a plurality opinion ... the Teague rule was affirmed and applied by a majority of the Court shortly thereafter"

Summary of this case from Murphy v. Royal

explaining that "[a]lthough Teague was a plurality opinion ... the Teague rule was affirmed and applied by a majority of the Court shortly thereafter"

Summary of this case from Murphy v. Royal

In Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 278, 128 S.Ct. 1029, 169 L.Ed.2d 859 (2008), the Supreme Court explained that although Title 28 gives federal courts the power to grant writs of habeas corpus, it also “leaves unresolved many important questions about the scope of available relief.

Summary of this case from Newman v. Wengler

In Danforth, the Court acknowledged that it is appropriate for states to develop their own “ state law to govern retroactivity in state postconviction proceedings.

Summary of this case from Lovins v. Parker

describing Teague as a “limit[ation on] the authority of federal courts to overturn state convictions”

Summary of this case from Chaidez v. U.S.

describing Teague as a "limit[ation on] the authority of federal courts to overturn state convictions"

Summary of this case from Chaidez v. U.S.

discussing the "confused and confusing `retroactivity' cases decided in the years between 1965 and 1987."

Summary of this case from Sierra Club v. Sandy Creek Energy Assoc

explaining that AEDPA "has no bearing on our decisions about whether new or old law should apply in a particular case"

Summary of this case from Miller v. Stovall

noting that unlike the Teague inquiry, which determines "whether new or old law should apply in a particular case," AEDPA represents Congress's intent to "control . . . federal courts' ability to grant postconviction remedies"

Summary of this case from Miller v. Stovall

stating that " Teague . . . was fashioned to achieve the goals of federal habeas while minimizing federal intrusion into state criminal proceedings"

Summary of this case from Greene v. Palakovich

noting that "[m]uch of the reasoning applicable to applications for writs of habeas corpus filed pursuant to § 2254 seems equally applicable in the context of § 2255 motions"

Summary of this case from Rhode v. U.S.
Case details for

Saporito v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD L. SAPORITO v. ASTRUE, COMM'R, SOCIAL SEC

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jan 7, 2008

Citations

552 U.S. 1116 (2008)
128 S. Ct. 916
169 L. Ed. 2d 859
76 U.S.L.W. 3346

Citing Cases

Miller v. State

Thus, even if the Supreme Court ever were to hold that Padilla is not retroactive under Teague, that holding…

Miller v. State

Thus, even if the Supreme Court ever were to hold that Padilla is not retroactive under Teague, that holding…