Fahy v. Horn

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 federal habeas court must afford a state court’s factual findings a presumption of correctness and that [] presumption applies to the factual determinations of state trial and appellate courts”
• holding that “a federal habeas court must afford a state court’s factual findings a presumption of correctness and that [] presumption applies to the factual determinations of state trial and appellate courts”
• holding that “a federal habeas court must afford a state court’s factual findings a presumption of correctness and that [] presumption applies to the factual determinations of state trial and appellate courts”
• holding that Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s decision was not “contraty to” cleatly established federal law because it appropriately relied on its own state coutt cases, which articulated proper standard derived from U.S. Supreme Court precedent
• holding Pennsylvania procedural rules could not bar federal review of the state court’s decision because the rules were not firmly established at the time of the prisoner’s default
• concluding state court’s decision was not “contrary to” clearly established federal law where it relied on state court cases which themselves articulated proper standard derived from Supreme Court precedent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).