Donald Nash v. Terry Russell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that under the AEDPA, a federal court can grant habeas relief only if the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
• holding that under the AEDPA, a federal court can grant habeas relief “only if the state court’s decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established [f]ederal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”
• holding that under the AEDPA, a federal court can grant habeas relief only if the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
• holding that under the AEDPA, a federal court can grant habeas relief only if the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
• recognizing the deferential AEDPA standard, noting this court will “take ‘only a limited and deferential review of underlying state court decisions’ ” (quoting Worthington v. Roper, 631 F.3d 487, 495 (8th Cir. 2011))
• discussing fair- presentment requirement (quoting Barrett v. Acevedo, 169 F.3d 1155, 1161–62 (8th Cir. 1999) (en banc)). Mr. Campbell’s appellate briefs are not in this action’s record (but should be once the State responds

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).