Risen Energy Co. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• deciding that a new rule was not substantive because “[t]he pro- scribed conduct” was “capital murder, the prosecution of which is, to put it mildly, not prohibited by the rule”
• holding that a case announced a new rule because its outcome was “susceptible to debate among reasonable minds”
• concluding that a rule was new under Teague because it “was susceptible to de- bate among reasonable minds”
• holding that the new rule of Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) — barring police-initiated interrogation following a suspect's request for counsel — is not watershed
• noting that it is insufficient that a result is considered to be merely “controlled” or “governed” by prior decisions
• noting that it is insufficient that a result is considered to be merely \controlled\ or \governed\ by prior decisions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).