Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Habeas Corpus : From 10/01/04 To 07/01/05
Number of summaries found: 11
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | Mayle v. Felix |
| Date: | 06/23/05 |
| Case Number: | 04-563 |
| Summary: | An amended habeas petition does not relate back when it asserts a new ground for relief supported by facts that differ in both time and type from those set forth in the original proceeding. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | Gonzalez v. Crosby |
| Date: | 06/23/05 |
| Case Number: | 04-6432 |
| Summary: | In habeas proceedings, a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is not to be treated as a successive habeas petition if it does not assert, or reassert, claims of error in the movant's state conviction. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | Miller-El v. Dretke |
| Date: | 06/13/05 |
| Case Number: | 03-9659 |
| Summary: | Denial of habeas relief to plaintiff is reversed where prosecutors in his capital murder trial made peremptory strikes of potential jurors based on race. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | Bradshaw v. Stumpf |
| Date: | 06/13/05 |
| Case Number: | 04-637 |
| Summary: | The Sixth Circuit erred when it granted defendant habeas relief on the ground that he was uninformed of his aggravated murder charge's specific intent element. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Per Curiam |
| Title: | Medellin v. Dretke |
| Date: | 05/23/05 |
| Case Number: | 04-5928 |
| Summary: | Review of defendant's habeas corpus petition, alleging that his rights under the Vienna Convention were violated, was improvidently granted where Texas state courts may provide defendant with the relief he seeks. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | Pace v. DiGuglielmo |
| Date: | 04/28/05 |
| Case Number: | 03-9627 |
| Summary: | A state post-conviction petition rejected by the state court as untimely is not "properly filed" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. section 2244(d)(2), and therefore does not toll the 1-year statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas corpus petition. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | Rhines v. Weber |
| Date: | 03/30/05 |
| Case Number: | 03-9046 |
| Summary: | A district court has discretion to stay a mixed petition for habeas relief to allow a petitioner to present his unexhausted claims to the state court in the first instance, and then to return to federal court for review of his perfected petition. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | Brown v. Payton |
| Date: | 03/22/05 |
| Case Number: | 03-1039 |
| Summary: | The grant of habeas relief to defendant is reversed where the Ninth Circuit's decision was contrary to the limits on federal habeas review imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Injury And Tort Law |
| Title: | WILKINSON v. DOTSON |
| Date: | 03/07/05 |
| Case Number: | 03-287 |
| Summary: | State prisoners may challenge the constitutionality of state parole procedures under a section 1983 action for declaratory and injunctive relief; they are not required to seek relief exclusively under the federal habeas corpus statutes. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | BELL v. CONE |
| Date: | 01/24/05 |
| Case Number: | 04-394 |
| Summary: | A Court of Appeals's grant of a writ of habeas corpus to defendant, on the ground that the "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" aggravating circumstance found by the jury was unconstitutionally vague, was improper where it failed to accord to the state court the deference required by 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d). |