Supreme Court· 6/24/1991

Ylst v. Nunnemaker

Citations

501 U.S. 797
111 S. Ct. 2590
115 L. Ed. 2d 706
1991 U.S. LEXIS 3636

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 applying procedural default provisions an unexplained appellate state-court decision is presumed to be based on the last reasoned decision
holding that in applying procedural default provisions an unexplained appellate state-court decision is presumed to be based on the last reasoned decision
holding that “where there has been one reasoned state judgment rejecting a federal claim, later unexplained orders upholding that judgment or rejecting the same claim rest upon the same ground”
holding that when lower state court speaks clearly all unexplained affirmances by higher state courts must ordinarily be read to confirm the unambiguous holding of lower court
holding that “look through” practice continues to apply on AEDPA review of California Supreme Court summary denials of habeas petition
holding that later unexplained orders 11 addressing the same claim are presumed to rest on the same grounds

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Scalia, White, Blackmun

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

915 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Ylst v. Nunnemaker

4 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.