Premo v. Moore
2011 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Premo v. Moore?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the right of individuals to federal habeas corpus relief on state-law claims. In a unanimous ruling, the court held that habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim that a state-court has found on the merits unless the state-court decision denying relief involves an "unreasonable application" of "clearly established federal law, as determined by" the Court.[1]
Quick Facts Premo v. Moore, Argued October 12, 2010 Decided January 19, 2011 ...
Premo v. Moore | |
---|---|
Argued October 12, 2010 Decided January 19, 2011 | |
Full case name | Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Randy Joseph Moore |
Docket no. | 09-658 |
Citations | 562 U.S. 115 (more) 131 S. Ct. 733; 178 L. Ed. 2d 649; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 910; 79 U.S.L.W. 4038; 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 749 |
Case history | |
Prior | Defendant convicted, unreported, affirmed sub nom. State v. Moore, 951 P.2d 204 (Or. Ct. App. 1997), review denied, 943 P.2d 395 (Or. 1998); state petition for relief rejected, unreported, affirmed sub nom. Moore v. Palmateer, 26 P.2d 191 (Or. Ct. App. 2001), rev. denied, 30 P.3d 1184 (Or. 2001); petition for habeas relief denied sub nom. Moore v. Czerniak, CV-01-01795-AJB/JMS (D. Or.), reversed and remanded, 534 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2008), opinion withdrawn and replaced with petitions for rehearing denied, 574 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2009); certiorari granted sub nom. Premo v. Moore 559 U.S. ___ |
Holding | |
Ninth Circuit erred in finding that the state-court decision was an unreasonable application of either part of the Strickland rule. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor |
Concurrence | Ginsburg (in judgment) |
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amends. V, VI |
Close