Parker v. Matthews

How courts have described this case

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

• state court’s decision on section 2254 review need only be “minimally consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case”
• For purposes of AEDPA, “circuit precedent does not constitute ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.’”
• “A [c]ircuit’s reliance on its own precedents [cannot] be defended . . . on the ground that they merely reflect what has been ‘clearly established’ by [Supreme Court] cases.”
• “As we explained in correcting an identical error by the Sixth Circuit .. . see Renico, 559 U'S., at___: 130 S.Ct, at 1865-1866, circuit precedent does not constitute ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).