Ramirez Alvarado, Carmen Vyria v. Triple S Management

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that determination by “state appeals court ... that the [defendants] had waived their right to conflict-free representation ... was an unreasonable determination of fact” under § 2254(d)(2
• concluding that the district court did not abuse its “broad discretion” by granting an extension in light of the four-day delay and the lack of any prejudice or bad faith
• noting that the standard for assessing whether a state habeas court’s decision involved an unreasonable application of clearly established law “does not speak to the standard of review where a state court applies erroneous law.”
• stating courts “look to the ‘last reasoned opinion,’ and where a higher state court has ruled on a petitioner’s motion on grounds different than those of the lower court, [courts] review the higher court’s decision alone”
• stating courts “look to the ‘last reasoned opinion,’ and where a higher state court has ruled on a petitioner's motion on grounds different than those of the lower court, [courts] review the higher court's decision alone”
• “[W]here a state court summarily denies a petitioner’s motion, and provides no statement of its reasons, ‘the habeas petitioner’s burden still must be met by showing there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).