Supreme Court· 6/11/2012

Parker v. Matthews

Citations

132 S. Ct. 2148
183 L. Ed. 2d 32
2012 U.S. LEXIS 4306
567 U.S. 37

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).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

154 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Parker v. Matthews

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Parker v. Matthews
District of Columbia· 1976-04-01· cited 100×

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.