Lockyer v. Andrade
- Decided
- March 5, 2003
- Docket
- 01-1127
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,077 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that under AEDPA, the state court's application of clearly established law must be objectively unreasonable, not merely incorrect or erroneous — Medley v. Runnels (2007)
- holding that the writ may not issue merely because a federal court finds that a state court's decision was "erroneous[] or incorrect[]" — Marcus C. Sanders v. A.A. Lamarque, Warden (2004)
- holding that the writ may not issue merely because a federal court finds that a state court’s decision was "erroneous[] or incorrect! ]” — Marcus C. Sanders v. A.A. Lamarque, Warden (2004)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*66] Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises the issue whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in ruling that the California Court of Appeal’s decision affirming Leandro An-drade’s two consecutive terms of 25 years to life in prison for a “third strike” conviction is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by this Court within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1).
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.