Supreme Court· 4/16/1991
McCleskey v. Zant
Citations
- 499 U.S. 467
- 111 S. Ct. 1454
- 113 L. Ed. 2d 517
- 1991 U.S. LEXIS 2218
- 59 U.S.L.W. 4288
- 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2680
- 91 Daily Journal DAR 4340
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that prejudice need not be considered where there is no cause for procedural default
- recognizing “the principle that petitioner must conduct a reasonable and diligent investigation aimed at including all relevant claims and grounds for relief in the first federal habeas petition”
- recognizing the “State’s interest in the finality of its criminal judgments”
- recognizing the \State's interest in the finality of its criminal judgments\
- rejecting “miscarriage of justice” claim because petitioner failed to demonstrate that alleged violation caused conviction of innocent per son
- replacing “deliberate bypass” standard for successive habeas petitioners with stricter “cause and prejudice” standard
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Kennedy, Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1,505 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Slack v. McDanielSupreme Court· 2000-04-26· cited 41,291×
- Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court· 1991-09-13· cited 12,560×
- Schlup v. DeloSupreme Court· 1995-01-23· cited 7,671×
- Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court· 1996-06-24· cited 7,493×
- Rose v. LeeFourth Circuit· 2001-05-24· cited 7,425×
- Brecht v. AbrahamsonSupreme Court· 1993-06-07· cited 7,022×
- Bousley v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1998-05-18· cited 5,336×
- Harmelin v. MichiganSupreme Court· 1991-06-27· cited 4,521×
- Pace v. DiGuglielmoSupreme Court· 2005-04-27· cited 4,510×
- Strickler v. GreeneSupreme Court· 1999-06-17· cited 4,383×
- Martinez v. RyanSupreme Court· 2012-03-20· cited 4,115×
- McQuiggin v. PerkinsSupreme Court· 2013-05-28· cited 3,838×
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaSupreme Court· 1996-03-27· cited 3,788×
- Herrera v. CollinsSupreme Court· 1993-01-25· cited 3,060×
- United States v. LopezSupreme Court· 1995-04-26· cited 3,052×
- Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.Supreme Court· 1991-05-13· cited 2,511×
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court· 1992-06-29· cited 2,492×
- House v. BellSupreme Court· 2006-06-12· cited 2,367×
- Sawyer v. WhitleySupreme Court· 1992-06-22· cited 1,925×
- O'NEAL v. McAninchSupreme Court· 1995-02-21· cited 1,687×
Cites
67 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 135,235×
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court· 1973-05-29· cited 11,783×
- Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court· 1979-05-14· cited 11,438×
- Murray v. CarrierSupreme Court· 1986-06-26· cited 7,499×
- Giglio v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1972-02-24· cited 7,003×
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court· 1989-04-17· cited 6,602×
- Wainwright v. SykesSupreme Court· 1977-06-23· cited 6,068×
- Rose v. LundySupreme Court· 1982-03-08· cited 5,808×
- United States v. FradySupreme Court· 1982-05-24· cited 5,791×
- Townsend v. SainSupreme Court· 1963-03-18· cited 4,485×
- Stone v. PowellSupreme Court· 1976-10-04· cited 4,303×
- Fay v. NoiaSupreme Court· 1963-03-18· cited 3,950×
- Pennsylvania v. FinleySupreme Court· 1987-05-18· cited 3,807×
- Engle v. IsaacSupreme Court· 1982-06-21· cited 3,714×
- Massiah v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1964-05-18· cited 3,189×
- Sanders v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1963-04-29· cited 2,713×
- Brown v. AllenSupreme Court· 1953-02-09· cited 2,465×
- McCleskey v. KempSupreme Court· 1987-06-08· cited 2,038×
- United States v. HastingSupreme Court· 1983-05-23· cited 1,999×
Other cases named McCleskey v. Zant
4 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.