Search for: "RUNNELS v. STATE" Results 1 - 20 of 28
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jun 2011, 8:36 am by Jon Sands
Sessoms v Runnels, No. 08-17790 (6-3-11)(Tallman with Rawlinson; dissent by B. [read post]
6 May 2010, 10:16 am by Jon Sands
Under AEDPA, the 9th finds that the state's holding was not unreasonable.U.S. v. [read post]
1 Nov 2007, 11:34 am
Her arguments seem fairly weak, and especially in places, a fair piece of a results-oriented stretch to find as many procedural obstacles to relief as possible.Admittedly, Judge Ikuta does a decent job at the end of her dissent of making her position seem somewhat moderate, stating that "[a]ll this is not to say that the majority's view is unreasonable. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 6:28 am
In the recent opinion California State Teachers’ Retirement System v. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 3:26 pm by Jon Sands
And under AEDPA, the state's interpretation was unreasonable.Thompson v. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 3:13 pm by Reinan Law
(“Aminokit”); Tamea Sisco, who owns Aminokit; Jonathan Lee, MD; Leo Runnels; Dennis Thompson, DC; and White Lodging Services Corporation, d/b/a The Fairfield Inn. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 4:27 pm by Jon Sands
  No, holds the 9th, because the state of the law at the time the state court decided the case was Oregon v. [read post]
The
20 Aug 2012, 11:24 am by Jon Sands
The dissenters wring their hands, shrug their shoulders, and say that under AEDPA the state court's ruling was not unreasonable (really).US v. [read post]
11 Oct 2007, 2:52 am
Runnels, No. 06-16780 (10-10-07). [read post]