in the Interest of W. H. J., a Child

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that fed- eral courts on habeas review look to the “last related state-court decision that [ ] provide[s] a relevant rationale”
• holding that federal habeas courts look to “the last related state-court decision” that adjudicated a petitioner’s federal claim
• holding that the last state court decision that provides relevant rationale is where the federal court should “train its attention.”
• holding that federal habeas courts look to “the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant rationale”
• holding that federal courts should “look through” the unexplained state decision to the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant rationale
• holding that a federal habeas court should “look through” an unexplained state court decision and apply AEDPA deference to “the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant rationale”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).