Degroof v. Milhorat

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that for evidence to fall within the scope of Penry, there must be a causal nexus between the mitigating evidence and the commission of the crime
• rejecting any suggestion that Penry II silently modified Penry I and encroached upon Jurek
• recognizing the continued vitality of the Teague nonretroactivity doctrine under AEDPA
• rejecting any suggestion that Penry II silently modified Penry I and encroached upon Jurek
• rejecting any suggestion that Penry II silently modified Penry I and encroached upon Jurek
• recognizing continued vitality of Teague nonretroactivity doctrine under AEDPA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).