William J. Jones v. M.L. Smith, Warden Attorney General State of California

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[t]he first exception identified in Teague is plainly inapplicable here, where the state’s authority to punish Petitioner for attempted murder is beyond question”
• holding that “the first exception identified in Teague is plainly inapplicable here, where the state’s authority to punish Petitioner for attempted murder is beyond question”
• holding that “the Apprendi rule, at least as applied to the omission of certain necessary elements from the state court information, is neither implicit in the concept of ordered liberty nor an absolute prerequisite to a fair trial”
• Holding that Apprendi does apply retroactively to initial section 2255 petitions
• Holding that Apprendi does apply retroactively to initial section 2255 petitions
• holding that “Apprendi certainly established a new rule”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).