Supreme Court· 5/14/2007

Schriro v. Landrigan

Citations

550 U.S. 465
127 S. Ct. 1933
167 L. Ed. 2d 836
2007 U.S. LEXIS 5496

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 court considering a request for an evidentiary hearing “must take into account” the deferential standards of § 2254(d
noting that whether a state court’s determination was unreasonable is “a substantially higher threshold” than whether that determination was incorrect
“[I]f the record refutes the applicant’s factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.”
“[T]he decision to grant [an evidentiary] hearing rests in the discretion of the district court.”
“The question under AEDPA is not whether a federal court believes the state court's determination was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable—a substantially higher threshold”
“The question under AEDPA is not whether a federal court believes the state court’s determination was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable—a substantially higher threshold.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Auto, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

45 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.