Legal Opinion

Knowles v. Mirzayance

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided March 24, 2009No. 07-1315PublishedCited by 2,721 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the Court. †

A federal court may grant a habeas corpus application arising from a state-court adjudication on the merits if the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). In this case, respondent Alexandre Mirzayance claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney recommended withdrawing his insanity defense. The California courts rejected this claim on state postconviction review. We must decide…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Anderson v. City of Bessemer CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Jones v. BarnesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  5. Yarborough v. AlvaradoSupreme Court of the United States · 2004

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2,721 opinions

  1. Harrington v. RichterSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  2. Cullen v. PinholsterSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  3. White v. WoodallSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
  4. Renico v. LettSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  5. Berghuis v. ThompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2010

2,716 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API