Breneman v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 670 (Fed. Cir. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Breneman v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 670 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Byron Morales v. John F. Ault (ca8, 2007-02-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Byron Morales v. John F. Ault (2×)
8th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
Finally, a state court decision involves “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings” only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings are rebutted by “clear and convincing evidence” and do not enjoy support in the record. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2), (e)(1); see also Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1027 , 125 S.Ct. 670 , 160 L.Ed.2d 507 (2004).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Stefan Koda Williams v. Kelly Locke
8th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), federal courts shall not grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person convicted in a state court unless the state court decision: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); see also Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 101…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Stefan Koda Williams v. Kelly Locke
8th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), federal courts shall not grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person convicted in a state court unless the state court decision: -4- (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); see also Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005,…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John BRENEMAN
v.
UNITED STATES
No. 04-496.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Dec 6, 2004.
125 S. Ct. 670
Published

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.