Legal Opinion
Bobby v. Dixon
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided November 7, 2011No. 10-1540PublishedCited by 264 opinions
1Per curiam
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court “must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fair-minded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U. S. 86, 103 (2011). The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit purported to identify three such grievous errors in the Ohio Supreme Court’s affirmance of respondent Archie Dixon’s murder…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Harrington v. RichterSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Oregon v. ElstadSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by264 opinions
- Warren Lee Hill, Jr. v. Carl HumphreyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2011
- White v. WheelerSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Robert Wayne Holsey v. Warden, Georgia Diagonstic PrisonCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2012
- Paul H. Evans v. Secretary, Florida Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2012
- Roy Blackmon v. Raymond BookerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
259 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.