Supreme Court· 5/29/2012

Coleman v. Johnson

Citations

132 S. Ct. 2060
182 L. Ed. 2d 978
2012 U.S. LEXIS 3943
566 U.S. 650
23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 327
76 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 739
80 U.S.L.W. 4402
2012 WL 1912196

How courts have described this case

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

holding that the Third Circuit “failed to afford due respect to the role of the jury and the state courts of Pennsylvania”
holding that habeas petitioner entitled to relief only where 14 jury’s factual “finding was so insupportable as to fall below the threshold of bare 15 rationality”
concluding that an inference from circumstantial evidence is reasonable so long as it is not “so insupportable as to fall below the threshold of bare rationality.”
observing that the Jackson inquiry asks only whether the jury’s finding “was so insupportable as to fall below the threshold of bare rationality”
explaining that such challenges “face a high bar ,,. because they are subject to two layers of judicial deference”
explaining that insufficient-evidence claims “face a high bar in federal habeas proceedings because they are subject to two layers of judicial deference[:]” (1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Coleman v. Johnson

17 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.