Cavender v. Haney

How courts have described this case

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

• distinguishing Richter because that case “addresses the situation in which a state-court decision ‘is unaccompanied by an explanation,’” whereas in the instant case “the state appellate court issued an opinion”
• “We certainly cannot assume that the Court overruled sub silentio [in Harrington] its holding in Wiggins—a precedent so important to the daily work of the lower federal courts.”
• “Conversely [to Harrington ], Wiggins and Rompilla were cases where the Court was not left to speculate as to what the state court had, and had not, adjudicated.”
• “We certainly cannot assume that the Court overruled sub silentio [in Harrington] its holding in Wiggins—a precedent so important to the daily work of the lower federal courts.”
• “Conversely [to Harrington], Wiggins and Rompilla were cases where the Court was not left to speculate as to what the state court had, and had not, adjudicated.”
• “We certainly cannot assume that the Court overruled sub silentio [in Harrington] its holding in Wiggins—a precedent so important to the daily work of the lower federal courts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).