Loading…
Opinion
142 L. Ed. 2d 491 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 4, 1998
Full text
Gilbert v. Moore, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections
Opinions in this case
Second Circuit · Jun 15, 2001
Fourth Circuit · Dec 29, 2000
E.D. Virginia · Sep 27, 2000
C.D. California · Sep 12, 2000
Fourth Circuit · Aug 28, 2000
D. New Jersey · Jun 23, 2000
W.D. North Carolina · Mar 9, 2000
Fourth Circuit · Mar 3, 2000
E.D. New York · Dec 30, 1999
Parentheticals
explaining that "the distinction between de novo review and 'reasonableness' review becomes [in]significant" when the state court does not offer any rationale for its ruling
holding that it could not review a state court's application of "clearly established law" when the court does not give a rationale for its adverse determination; in such a case the federal court must "independently ascertain whether the record reveals a violation"
explaining that “the distinction between de novo review and ‘reasonableness’ review becomes [insignificant” when the state court does not offer any rationale for its ruling
holding that it could not review a state court’s application of “clearly established law” when the court does not give a rationale for its adverse determination; in such case the federal court must “independently ascertain whether the record reveals a violation”
holding that it could not review a state court’s application of “clearly established law” when the court does not give a rationale for its adverse determination; in such a ease the federal court must “independently ascertain whether the record reveals a violation”
requiring a de novo review when the Supreme Court of a state denies a habeas petition in a summary order without specifically stating its reasons for dismissal
explaining the significance of Virginia not being an "opt-in” jurisdiction
