Skip to main content
· 12/22/1987

Douglas Vincent Metheny v. M.C. Hamby, Warden and William M. Leech, Attorney General of the State of Tennessee

Citations

  • 835 F.2d 672
  • 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 16559
  • 1987 WL 24458

How courts have described this case

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

  • “[A] claimed violation of Article IV(e) of the IAD is not a fundamental defect which is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”
  • “[A] claimed violation of Article IV(e) of the IAD is not a fundamental defect which is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254”
  • “[A] claimed violation of Article IV(e) of the IAD is not a fundamental defect which is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”
  • applying Frye and Lafler in § 2255 context

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Jones, Norris, Peck

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.