Wayne Hare 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.

• holding that in Lafler, “the Court’s language repeatedly and clearly spoke of applying an established rule to the present facts”
• holding that the Supreme Court did not announce a new rule of constitutional law in either Lafler or Frye where the Supreme Court’s “language repeatedly and clearly spoke of applying an established rule to the present facts[.]”
• holding that Lafler applied an “established rule”
• denying authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion because neither Lafler nor Frye established a new rule of constitutional law
• “Neither Frye nor [Lafler] directly addressed the old rule/new rule question . . . .”
• “The Frye Court merely applied the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel according to the test first articulated in Strickland ... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).