Supreme Court· 1/24/2005

Bell v. Cone

Citations

543 U.S. 447
125 S. Ct. 847
160 L. Ed. 2d 881
2005 U.S. LEXIS 1369

How courts have described this case

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

holding that we erred in concluding that state court failed to cure faulty “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator instruction
presuming that the state supreme court properly applied 4 the narrowing construction of an aggravating factor even though it did not cite the 5 applicable case
raising without deciding whether, in light of Ring, an appellate court could cure a vague aggravating factor by applying a narrower construction
raising without deciding whether, in light of Ring, an appellate court could cure a vague aggravating factor by applying a narrower construction
declining to address whether the court of appeals correctly held that the petitioner had not defaulted on his claim and citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2
declining to address whether the court of appeals correctly held that the petitioner had not defaulted on his claim and citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

122 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

35 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.