Schriro v. Landrigan
- Decided
- May 14, 2007
- Docket
- 05-1575
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,241 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- concluding that a state court's decision was not objectively unreasonable because the Supreme Court had yet to speak on the issue — Sessoms v. Runnels (2011)
- holding that a court considering a request for an evidentiary hearing “must take into account” the deferential standards of § 2254(d — Schad v. Ryan (2009)
- holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing an evidentiary hearing on a habeas claim — Terrick Nooner v. Ray Hobbs (2012)
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
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
In cases where an applicant for federal habeas relief is not barred from obtaining an evidentiary hearing by 28 U. S. C. § 2254(e)(2), the decision to grant such a hearing rests in the discretion of the district court. Here, the District Court determined that respondent could not make out a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and therefore was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. It did so after reviewing the state-court record and expanding the record to [*469] include additional evidence offered by respondent. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the hearing. We hold that it did not.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007)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.