Dunbar, G. v. Kauffman, Supt.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a court should not infer otherwise ambiguous statements to have their most damaging meaning
• holding that there is a meaningful distinction between ordinary trial error and the sort of egregious misconduct that results in a denial of due process
• holding that a court should not infer otherwise ambiguous statements to have their most damaging meaning
• holding that federal courts may only overturn convictions resulting from state trials when the alleged error \violated some right which was guaranteed to the defendant by the Fourteenth Amendment.\
• holding that federal courts may only overturn convictions resulting from state trials when the alleged error “violated some right which was guaranteed to the defendant by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
• holding that a single remark during an extended trial was insufficient to render the trial fundamentally unfair

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).