Christopher Wernert v. City of Dublin

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that § 2253(c)(2) “means ‘showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether’ relief should have been granted” (quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at 484)
• referring to the jury instructions as “a user’s manual” for the verdict form
• recognizing our discretion to excuse forfeitures
• “Of course, failing to raise wholly meritless claims is neither deficient nor prejudicial.” (citations omitted)
• “If no fair-minded jurist (even one sympathetic to the claim) could doubt that the state-court decision was defensible, the claim should not be certified.”
• “Again, a certificate is improper if any outcome- determinative issue is not reasonably debatable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).