Search for: ""Teague v. Lane" OR "489 U.S. 288""
Results 1 - 20
of 47
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jan 2022, 11:36 am
Undisclosed evidence violated DOJ policy but did not rise to the level of a Brady violation where the evidence was cumulative and otherwise available to the defendant U.S. v. [read post]
20 May 2021, 7:01 am
Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), the Court held that while Ramos announced a “new” procedural rule it was not a “watershed rule” that applies retroactively. [read post]
27 Apr 2021, 3:22 pm
Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), and it isn’t a watershed rule.) [read post]
19 Jan 2021, 2:32 pm
U.S. v. [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 10:57 am
Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 (1989)). [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 6:53 pm
Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 311-312 (1989). [read post]
3 Dec 2019, 3:53 pm
Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), must be given “retroactive effect” in cases where direct review was complete when Miller was decided. [read post]
30 Oct 2019, 10:13 am
Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), must be given “retroactive effect” in cases where direct review was complete when Miller was decided. [read post]
3 May 2018, 1:37 pm
Lane, 489 U.S. 288,, 109 S.Ct. 1060 (1989); Sullivan v. [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 8:41 am
Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), because a claim of systemic delay wasn't dictated by the holdings in Furman v. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 6:27 am
Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)? [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 6:27 am
Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)? [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 12:48 pm
Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), in Schriro v. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 3:41 pm
Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), the court said this is a procedural change, not a substantive one, and it does not qualify as a "watershed" ruling on the scale of Gideon v. [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 8:23 am
Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 311 (1989) (Teague was a plurality decision that later became a holding of the Court. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 2:32 pm
Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 306 (1989). [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 11:48 am
Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004), and Teague v. [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 8:32 pm
Lane, 489 U.S. 288, compels the State to apply the Miller rule in her case because “evenhanded justice requires that [a new rule] be applied retroactively to all who are similarly situated. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 11:56 am
489 U.S. 288, 301 (1989)(holding that to impart retroactivity, a rule must be supported by ample existing precedent). [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 1:33 pm
Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). [read post]
