Holfinger v. Stonespring/Carespring, L.L.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an assessment of the strength of the evidence is a legal determination
• finding no Strickland prejudice where excluded evidence “would have been substantially cumulative of other evidence already presented at both the hearing and at trial”
• “a state court’s application of federal law is only unreasonable if all fairminded jurists would agree the state court decision was incorrect”
• “[A] state court’s application of federal law is only unreasonable if all fairminded jurists would agree the state court decision was incorrect.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Even a clearly erroneous application of federal law is not objectively unreasonable. . . . Rather, a state court's application of federal law is only unreasonable if all fairminded jurists would agree the state court decision was incorrect.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).