Curtis v. Montgomery

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a habeas petitioner may not “use a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to press his preferred interpretation of Illinois law”
• denying § 2254 claim where petitioner was “impermissibly attempting to use a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to press his preferred interpretation of Illinois law.”
• “A petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus if . . . a state court unreasonably applies clearly established federal law[.]”
• “Jackson requires that the prosecution put forward enough evidence of each element of the offense that a rational fact finder could find the 63 1-17-2811 defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis added.)
• “Jackson requires that the prosecution put forward enough evidence of each element of the offense that a rational fact finder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis added.)
• “We may not review state- court interpretations of state law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).