Lodhi v. Hobson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that under AEDPA, the state court's application of clearly established law must be objectively unreasonable, not merely incorrect or erroneous
• holding that under AEDPA, the state court’s application of clearly established law must be objectively unreasonable, not merely incorrect or erroneous
• holding that the writ may not issue merely because a federal court finds that a state court's decision was \erroneous[] or incorrect[]\
• holding that “objectively unreasonable” analysis under § 2254(d)(1) is also different from “clear error” review
• holding that it is not enough that a federal habeas court is left with a “firm conviction” that a state court violated the Constitution and that the state court determination must also be objectively unreasonable
• holding that under AEDPA, the state court’s application of clearly estab- lished law must be objectively unreasonable, not merely incorrect or erroneous

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).