Supreme Court· 4/18/2000

Williams v. Taylor

Citations

529 U.S. 362
120 S. Ct. 1495
146 L. Ed. 2d 389
2000 U.S. LEXIS 2837

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 language of § 2254(d)(1) expressly “restricts the source of clearly established law to [the Supreme Court’s] jurisprudence”
holding that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), which includes two disjunctive clauses, must be read so as to give independent meaning to both clauses
concluding that Strickland provided standards that were clearly established federal law applicable to ineffective assistance of counsel claims
holding that a failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence during sentencing hearing constituted ineffective assistance, even when doing so would have admitted some unfavorable evidence
holding that the failure to “conduct an investigation that would have uncovered extensive records graphically describing [the petitioner’s] nightmarish childhood” constituted deficient performance
holding that an erroneous, but not unreasonable, application of Supreme Court precedent will not justify habeas relief

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Stevens, O'Con-Nor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Thomas, Scaua

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6,258 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

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

Other cases named Williams v. Taylor

29 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.