Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
First Circuit· 1/20/2010

Clements v. Clarke

Citations

  • 592 F.3d 45
  • 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1168
  • 2010 WL 175095

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that federal claim is reviewed de novo in habeas proceedings where state court relies solely on state standards that do not implicate federal constitutional issues
  • noting that only “[w]hen a state court has truly avoided (or merely overlooked) the petitioner’s federal claim” may a federal court “step into the breach and review de novo”; “judicial opacity is a far cry from judicial avoidance”
  • “It is the result to which we owe deference, not the opinion expounding it.”
  • “It is the result to which we owe deference, not the opinion expounding it.”
  • “[A] state court decision that does not address the federal claim on the merits falls beyond the ambit of [the] AEDPA. When presented with such unadjudicated claims, the habeas court reviews them de novo.”
  • “In contrast, a state court decision that does not address the federal claim on the merits falls beyond the ambit of AEDPA. When presented with such unadjudicated claims, the habeas court reviews them de novo.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Torruella, Selya, Howard

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases named Clements v. Clarke

3 other CourtListener records share this case 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.