Paulson v. Kenney

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a \full and fair hearing\ is not a precondition to according 2254(e)(1)'s presumption of correctness to a state habeas court's findings of fact
• holding that a “full and fair hearing” is not a precondition to according 2254(e)(l)’s presumption of correctness to a state habeas court’s findings of fact
• holding that 85 R. Doc. 25 at 8. presumption of correctness and deferential standard of review apply to state court’s findings of fact even when reached without “full and fair” evidentiary hearing
• holding that AEDPA’s mandatory language stating that § 2254(d)’s standards apply to all cases “adjudicated on the merits” does not speak to the quality of the process and “leave no room for judicial imposition of a full and fair hearing prerequisite”
• stating that the AEDPA’s deferential scheme “operates when the state court has adjudicated the petitioner’s claim on the merits”
• explaining the presumption of correctness also applies to “those unarticulated findings which are necessary to the state court’s conclusions of mixed law and fact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).