Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Ninth Circuit· 6/16/2009

Holley v. Yarborough

Citations

  • 568 F.3d 1091
  • 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12749
  • 2009 WL 1667867

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that excluding testimony based in part on time constraints was unreasonable because it was unlikely that admitting the testimony \would have significantly lengthened the trial\
  • concluding that excluding testimony based in part on time constraints was unreasonable because it was unlikely that admitting the testimony “would have significantly lengthened the trial”
  • recognizing that although the 16 admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence rendered the trial fundamentally unfair 17 under Ninth Circuit precedent, federal habeas relief was unavailable under 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2254(d)(1
  • explaining that the Due Process Clause will support habeas relief when constitutional errors have rendered a trial fundamentally unfair
  • recognizing 13 that the Supreme Court has never held that the admission of any type of evidence violates due 14 process
  • noting that the Supreme Court has never held that the admission of any type of 22 evidence violates due process

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nelson, Kleinfeld, Smith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

40 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

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

Other cases named Holley v. Yarborough

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

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.