Tafford Lee Holman, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Jerry D. Gilmore, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, under this definition, “a motion for counsel is not itself a petition, because it does not call for (or even permit
• describing studies indicating that “if persuaded that the defendants are indeed nutty, jurors believe that death is the only sure way to prevent future crimes”
• distinguishing minimum funding requirement under ERISA from environmental regulations designed to protect the public health and safety
• “[T]he motion for counsel is not itself a petition, because it does not call for (or even permit) a decision on the merits. And it is ‘the merits’ that the amended § 2254(d)(1) is all about”
• “No such principle has been adopted to date by the Supreme Court, 22 No. 04-3044 so § 2254(d)(1) precludes its recognition for the first time on collateral review.”
• “Strickland builds in an element of deference to counsel’s choices in conducting the litigation; § 2254(d)(1) adds a layer of respect for a state court’s application of the legal standard.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).