Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Gilbert v. Moore
Gilbert v. Moore, 525 U.S. 1037 (1998)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1998-12-04
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- 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
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Gilbert v. Moore. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 24 opinions
Sup. Ct. S. C. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, de