Lautner v. Catarelli

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that federal habeas petitioners must satisfy both the Brecht harmless error standard and the AEDPA standard in order to obtain habeas relief
• holding that a petitioner must satisfy Brecht and AEDPA standards to obtain habeas relief
• ruling that “to prove the state court’s decision was unreasonable,” a habeas petitioner “must persuade a federal court that no ‘fairminded juris[t]’ could reach the state court’s conclusion under this Court’s precedents” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)
• noting that “holdings that speak only at a high level of generality” “cannot supply a ground for relief” under AEDPA
• stating that, to be entitled to habeas relief, a petitioner must show, inter alia, that the state court’s “harmless-error determination” was unreasonable under Section 2254(d)(1)
• noting that stare decisis is “a tool of judicial humility” and seeks to avoid “judicial hubris”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).