enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Darr v. Burford - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darr_v._Burford

    Congress authorized federal courts in 28 USC § 2254 to grant habeas review when the state process was "ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner". The exhaustion requirement recognized in Ex parte Hawk was codified in the 1948 amendment to § 2254: "This new section is declaratory of existing law as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

  3. Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and...

    Zant (1991), [22] had restricted the presentation of new claims through subsequent habeas petitions. AEDPA replaced this doctrine with a stricter bar on "second or successive petitions" (sec. 106). Petitioners in federal habeas proceedings that have already been decided in a previous habeas petition would find the claims barred.

  4. List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal court hearing a habeas petition from a state prisoner must presume that the state court decided the prisoner's federal claim on the merits, even if the state court did not expressly address that federal claim. Evans v. Michigan: 11-1327: 2013-02-20

  5. Title 28 of the United States Code - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_28_of_the_United...

    Title 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) is the portion of the United States Code (federal statutory law) that governs the federal judicial system. It is divided into six parts: Part I: Organization of Courts

  6. Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lackawanna_County_District...

    As the basis for the habeas challenge was Title 28, Section §2254 of the United States Code, each element of that section had to be fulfilled in order to gain relief (a reduction in sentence). [4] The first element was that the petitioner is "in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court", a status that Coss could not fulfill as he was ...

  7. Brown v. Allen - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Allen

    United States courts are authorized by statute (28 USC §2241 pursuant to §2254) to grant habeas relief to prisoners who have been convicted by a state court. [ 2 ] Justice Felix Frankfurter concurring in Brown notes the "uniqueness" of habeas corpus is its availability to "bring into question the legality of a person's restraint and to ...

  8. Right to petition in the United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition_in_the...

    The 1688 Bill of Rights provides no such limitation to assembly. Under the common law, the right of an individual to petition implies the right of multiple individuals to assemble lawfully for that purpose. [11] England's implied right to assemble to petition was made an express right in the US First Amendment.

  9. Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_Case...

    The Act amended 28 U.S.C. § 1257 to eliminate the right of appeal to the Supreme Court from certain state-court judgments. [3] Prior to the enactment of the Act, if the highest state court had found either a federal statute or treaty to be invalid or a state statute not to be invalid in the face of federal law, the party that had not prevailed ...