Floyd Rayner, III v. David Mills

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when a state court reviews only one portion of a claim in disposing of the claim, we review de novo any portions of the claim that the state court did not review
• explaining that even “when there is no explanation as to either Strickland prong,” a reviewing habeas court must still “afford both prongs AEDPA deference” after determining what arguments or theories could have plausibly supported the state court’s decision
• analyzing the continued vitality of the rule that “AEDPA deference does not apply to review of the Strickland prong not relied upon by the state court” in light of Harrington and concluding that this standard remains correct
• analyzing the continued vitality of the rule that “AEDPA deference does not apply to review of the Strickland prong not relied upon by the state court” in light of Harrington and concluding that this standard remains correct
• analyzing the continued vitality of the rule that “AEDPA deference does not apply to review of the Strickland prong not relied upon by the state court” in light of Harrington and concluding that this standard remains correct
• “[A]s the issues have already been briefed and presented to this Court, we will not review the grant of the COA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).