Bank of America, N.A. v. John Salerno

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Lisenba did not serve as clearly established law for a due-process claim based on the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence
• holding that the “Perry rule” regarding res judicata was an adequate and independent state law ground upon which to find a claim procedurally defaulted, and thus, bar its consideration of claims by district courts
• holding that the “Perry rule” regarding res judicata was an adequate and independent state law ground upon which to find a claim procedurally defaulted, and thus, bar its consideration of claims by district courts
• stating that, to obtain habeas relief based on an allegedly improper evidentiary ruling, a petitioner must identify “‘a Supreme Court case establishing a due process right with regard to the specific kind of evidence’ at issue”
• stating that, to obtain habeas relief based on an allegedly improper evidentiary ruling, a petitioner must identify “a Supreme Court case establishing a due process right with regard to the specific kind of evidence at issue”
• stating that, to obtain habeas relief based on an allegedly improper evidentiary ruling, a petitioner must identify “‘a Supreme Court case establishing a due process right with regard to the specific kind of evidence’ at issue”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).