Kenneth Hibbler v. James Benedetti

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the question is “ ‘not whether a federal court believes the state court’s determination was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable—a substantially higher threshold.’ ”
• holding that a state court need not “conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve every disputed factual question” and that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary where the record precludes relief
• concluding, after reviewing the evidence presented in state court, that the state court’s determination was not unreasonable
• concluding, after reviewing the evidence presented in state court, that the state court’s determination was not unreasonable
• explaining that while “[i]n some limited circumstances, . . . the state court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing may render its fact-finding process unreasonable under § 2254(d)(2
• noting that, “if a district court would be within its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing, a state STATEN V. DAVIS 27 court’s similar decision is probably not objectively unreasonable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).