Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Lindh v. Murphy
519 U.S. 1074
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1997-01-10
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- accepting certiorari on the question of whether § 107(c) of AEDPA fails to specify the extent to which § 2254(d
- granting certiorari to review Seventh Circuit's holding that amendments in question are retroactive, Lindh v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 856 (7th Cir.1996) (en banc)
- coneluding that the amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 apply retrospectively
- suggesting in dicta that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the reprosecution of a defendant who has bribed a judge and been acquitted
- accepting -11- certiorari on the question of whether § 107(c) of AEDPA fails to specify the extent to which § 2254(d
- on the question of whether § 107(e) fails to specify the extent to which § 2254(d) is to apply retroactively to pending habeas petitions, and, if so, whether the court correctly determined that the “habeas-curtailing statutes apply retroactively”
- Act’s amendments codified at section 2254(d) apply to pending cases
- determining whether Act’s standard of review provisions apply retroactively
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Lindh v. Murphy. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 90 opinions
C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. Brief of petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, February 21, 1997. Brief of respondent is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, March 21, 1997. A reply brief, if any, may be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday, April 7, 1997. This Court’s.Rule 29.2 does not apply.