Tucker v. Catoe

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the jury’s return to the courtroom following a request to rehear testimony did not count as a “return” under the statute because it “was at their own insistence and was not necessarily motivated by their inability to agree”
• finding that on a close issue, the appellate court can disagree with the state court without the state court decision having been unreasonable
• stating that the unreasonable application prong is met if the state court decision unreasonably extends or unreasonably fails to extend Supreme Court precedent to a new context
• denying habeas on a \close issue\ even though the state court was incorrect
• finding error, but nonetheless concluding that the state court was not unreasonable
• finding instruction coercive but denying state habeas relief on other grounds

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).