Kater v. Maloney

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Mu'Min \carefully distinguished between constitutional requirements which states must meet and the exercise of its broader supervisory authority over cases tried in federal courts\
• noting that federal courts do not review errors of state law on habeas
• explaining that federal habeas courts do not review errors of state law
• in habeas context, relevant inquiry on appeal regarding evidentiary claim of error is “whether any error rendered the trial so fundamentally unfair that it violated the Due Process Clause”
• “[S]tate habeas petitioners may not seek release on federal law grounds which have yet to be clearly established.”
• “Errors based on violations of state law are not within the reach of federal habeas petitions unless there is a federal constitutional claim raised.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).