DERRICK V. HOSKIN v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, in light of Musladin , a court must first determine whether the petitioner seeks to apply a rule of law that was clearly established by the Supreme Court at the time his or her conviction became final
• holding that while a Supreme Court holding need not “have had its genesis in [a] closely-related or similar factual context” to the case at issue, “the Supreme Court must have expressly extended the legal rule to that context”
• explaining that “Supreme Court holdings—the exclusive touchstone for clearly established federal law—must be construed narrowly and consist only of something akin to on-point holdings”
• explaining that “Supreme Court holdings—the exclusive touchstone for clearly established federal law—must be construed narrowly and consist only of something akin to on-point holdings”
• explaining that “Supreme Court holdings—the exclusive touchstone for clearly established federal law—must be construed 5 Crow concedes that Justus complied with 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1
• explaining that “Supreme Court holdings—the exclusive touchstone for clearly established federal law—must be construed narrowly and consist only of something akin to on-point holdings”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).