Ninth Circuit· 8/11/2016

Hardy v. Chappell

Citations

849 F.3d 803
2016 WL 8114990

How courts have described this case

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

holding double deference does not apply to the prejudice prong of a Strickland claim because it presents “a more specific legal rule” than the deficiency prong
examining petitioner’s constitutional 2 claim de novo under Section 2254(a) where the petition satisfied the “contrary to” clause of 3 Section 2254(d)(1)
examining petitioner’s constitutional 5 claim de novo under Section 2254(a) where the petition satisfied the “contrary to” clause of 6 Section 2254(d)(1)
California supreme court erred by employing a standard of review harsher than 23 Strickland
“Double deference references to the layering of the reasonableness test from § 2254(d

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bastian, Bea, Bybee, Callahan, From, Gould, Ikuta, Owens, Pregerson, Scannlain, Smith, Tallman, Whom

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.