Wolfe v. Johnson

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 state court’s conclusion that Wolfe failed to show a prejudicial influence on the jury’s deliberations was not objectively unreasonable”
• holding that district court applied improper legal standard in denying habeas petitioner’s request for evidentiary hearing when it found affidavit attached to complaint “not credible”
• holding that Rule 4 contemplates that a § 2254 petition will be judged on its face, along with any attached exhibits
• holding that district court applied improper legal standard in denying habeas petitioner’s request for evidentiary hearing when it found affidavit attached to complaint “not credible”
• holding that the “adequacy of a § 2254 petition will be judged on the face of the petition and any attached exhibits,” and likening Rule 4 to Rule 12(b)(6)
• holding, in § 2254(d) context, that the state court did not unreasonably apply Remmer in concluding Wolfe failed to show that a juror’s numerous telephone conversations during the course of jury deliberations constituted an impermissible external jury influence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).