Cases pin-citing Cullen · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Cullen

Cases pin-citing Cullen

Cullen v. Pinholster  ·  2011  ·  149 pinpoint citations from 86 cases, 53 distinct passages.

Geer v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County)  ·  2025-09-04  ·  M.D. Florida  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“ ’s holding governs only claims brought under Section 2254(d)(1), but its logic applies even more clearly to Section 2254(d)(2) . . . .”
Witkowski v. Bennett  ·  2025-06-02  ·  W.D. Washington  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“Pinholster and the statutory text make clear that [the] evidentiary 10 limitation [to the record before the state courts] is applicable to 2254(d)(2) claims as 11 well.”
Dickie v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Sarasota County)  ·  2025-04-17  ·  M.D. Florida  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“This is a ‘difficult to meet,’ . . . and ‘highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt’ . . . .”
Monaco v. Forshey  ·  2025-02-04  ·  N.D. Ohio  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 131 L. Ed. 2d at 170
“Our review of the [state court’s] decision is thus doubly deferential. We take a highly deferential look at counsel’s performance through the deferential lens of § 2254(d).”
Smith v. Clendenion  ·  2024-08-23  ·  E.D. Tennessee  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“Pinholster plainly bans [any] attempt to obtain review of the merits of claims presented in state court in light of facts that were not presented in state court.”
Karl Roberts v. Dexter Payne  ·  2024-08-19  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“Taking AEDPA and Strickland together establishes a ‘doubly deferential’ standard of review in § 2254 cases.”
Juarez v. Crews  ·  2024-07-17  ·  M.D. Florida  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“This is a ‘difficult to meet,’ and ‘highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt[.]’”
Napier v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Polk County)  ·  2024-05-21  ·  M.D. Florida  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“This is a ‘difficult to meet,’ . . . and ‘highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt’ . . . .”
Twyford v. Bradshaw  ·  2024-03-27  ·  S.D. Ohio  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that 3 adjudicated the claim on the merits”
Hearns v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Sarasota)  ·  2024-03-21  ·  M.D. Florida  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“This is a ‘difficult to meet,’ . . . and ‘highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt’ . . . .”
Zayas-Acosta v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Polk County)  ·  2024-03-07  ·  M.D. Florida  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“This is a ‘difficult to meet,’ . . . and ‘highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt’ . . . .”
Sheppard v. Secretary, Department of Corrections  ·  2023-09-29  ·  M.D. Florida  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“This is a ‘difficult to meet,’ and ‘highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt[.]’”
Head v. Christiansen  ·  2023-09-05  ·  E.D. Michigan  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“We now hold that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.”
Nunn v. Shinn  ·  2023-07-25  ·  D. Arizona  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“Conclusory 1 allegations . . . do not warrant habeas relief.”
Bryant v. Robinson  ·  2023-05-04  ·  N.D. Ohio  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 131 L. Ed. 2d at 557
“We take a ‘highly deferential’ look at counsel’s performance, Strickland, [ 466 U.S. at 689 ], through the ‘deferential lens of § 2254(d),’ [Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 , 121 n.2, 129 S. Ct. 1411 , 173 L. Ed. 2d 251 (2009) (further citation omitted)].”
Lanier v. Secretary, Department of Corrections  ·  2023-03-28  ·  M.D. Florida  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“This is a ‘difficult to meet,’ . . . and ‘highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt’ . . . .”
Gaston v. Fender  ·  2023-02-06  ·  N.D. Ohio  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 131 L. Ed. 2d at 170
“[R]eview under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.”
Jackson v. Harris  ·  2022-11-03  ·  N.D. Ohio  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits”
(HC) Williams v. Lizarraga  ·  2022-11-03  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“Section 2254(e)(2) imposes a limitation on the discretion of federal habeas courts to 20 take new evidence in an evidentiary hearing.”
Ellison v. Salmonsen  ·  2022-09-27  ·  D. Montana  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“To warrant habeas relief, the state court's application of Supreme Court authority must be objectively unreasonable, not just an incorrect application of federal law.”
Ambrose v. Cain  ·  2022-08-17  ·  S.D. Mississippi  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“We now hold that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.”
Voss v. Eplett  ·  2022-08-04  ·  E.D. Wisconsin  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“It would be contrary to [the purpose of the federal habeas scheme] to allow a petitioner to overcome an adverse state-court decision with new evidence introduced in a federal habeas court and reviewed by that court in the first instance effectively de novo.”
Ambrose v. Cain  ·  2022-04-04  ·  S.D. Mississippi  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“We now hold that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.”
Durham v. Marquis  ·  2022-03-25  ·  N.D. Ohio  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 131 L. Ed. 2d at 557
“We take a ‘highly deferential’ look at counsel’s performance, Strickland, [ 466 U.S. at 689 ], through the ‘deferential lens of § 2254(d),’ [Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 , 121 n.2, 129 S. Ct. 1411 , 173 L. Ed. 2d 251 (2009) (further citation omitted)].”
Scott v. Banks  ·  2022-03-16  ·  S.D. Mississippi  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 131 L. Ed. 2d at 557
“The import of Pinholster is clear: because [the petitioner’s] claims have already been adjudicated on the merits, § 2254 limits our review to the record that was before the state court.”
Nunez-Hernandez v. Lumpkin, TDCJ Director  ·  2021-11-08  ·  W.D. Texas  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“If a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by a state court, a federal habeas petitioner must overcome the limitation of § 2254(d)(1) on the record that was before that state court.”
Jones v. United States  ·  2021-11-04  ·  District of Columbia Court of Appeals  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“[C]ounsel’s deficiency must have resulted in substantial prejudice.”
Bodney 130538 v. Shinn  ·  2021-09-14  ·  D. Arizona  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“We now hold that review under 12 § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim 13 on the merits.”
Salazar v. Lumpkin  ·  2021-05-28  ·  W.D. Texas  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“If a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by a state court, a federal habeas petitioner must overcome the limitation of § 2254(d)(1) on the record that was before that state court.”
Wilson v. Secretary, Department of Corrections  ·  2021-03-31  ·  M.D. Florida  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“This is a ‘difficult to meet,’ . . . and ‘highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt’ . . . .”
(HC) Williams v. Martel  ·  2020-11-16  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“‘[B]ecause the deferential standards prescribed by § 2254 control whether to grant 9 | habeas relief, a federal court must take into account those standards in deciding whether an 10 | evidentiary hearing is appropriate.””
Siwanowicz v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Polk County)  ·  2020-10-16  ·  M.D. Florida  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“double deference”
Gonzales v. Shinn  ·  2020-10-15  ·  D. Arizona  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“[E]vidence introduced in 11 federal court has no bearing on § 2254(d)(1) review. If a claim has been adjudicated on the 12 merits by a state court, a federal habeas petitioner must overcome the limitation of § 13 2254(d)(1) on the record that was before that state court.”
Cabral v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County)  ·  2020-10-09  ·  M.D. Florida  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“double deference”
Dunckley v. Robert LeGrand  ·  2020-09-22  ·  D. Nevada  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“If a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by a state court, a federal habeas 15 petitioner must overcome the limitation of §2254(d)(1) on the record that was before that state 16 court.”
Shaw v. Varga  ·  2020-06-24  ·  N.D. Illinois  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“[T]he statute has no time limit. But that does not make the statute vague.”
Strunk v. Gastelo  ·  2019-11-01  ·  S.D. California  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“[A]n evidentiary hearing is pointless once the district 28 court has determined that § 2254(d) precludes habeas relief.”
Chavez v. LeGrand  ·  2019-09-12  ·  D. Nevada  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“[R]eview under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.”
Malone v. Gossett  ·  2019-08-30  ·  N.D. Illinois  ·  pin 563 U.S. at 170
“Federal courts must avoid using federal habeas corpus review as a vehicle to second-guess the reasonable decisions of state courts.”
Goode v. Carpenter  ·  2019-04-29  ·  Tenth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 131 L. Ed. 2d at 170
"We now hold that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits."
Perry Austin v. Lorie Davis, Director  ·  2017-11-30  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 131 L. Ed. 2d at 170
“At a minimum, ... § 2254(e)(2) still restricts the discretion of federal habeas courts to consider new evidence when deciding claims that were not adjudicated on "the merits in state court.”
Ricardo Sanders v. Vince Cullen  ·  2017-10-13  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 131 L. Ed. 2d at 170
“Section 2254(d) applies even where there has been a summary denial.”
McMillan v. State  ·  2017-08-11  ·  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 131 S. Ct. at 170
' Strickland itself rejected the notion that the same investigation will be required in every case.'
Linnon v. Clarke  ·  2017-01-30  ·  E.D. Virginia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 131 L. Ed. 2d at 170
“[RJeview under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.”
Fuentes v. Griffin  ·  2016-07-15  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 131 L. Ed. 2d at 170
“[R]eview under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.”
Hyman v. Brown  ·  2016-07-13  ·  E.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 131 L. Ed. 2d at 170
“review of [state court]’s decision is ... doubly deferential [because] [w]e take a highly deferential look at counsel’s performance [under Strickland] through the deferential lens of § 2254(d)”
Williams v. Davis  ·  2016-06-28  ·  S.D. Texas  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 131 L. Ed. 2d at 170
“The exhaustion requirement thus reserves to state courts the first opportunity to resolve factual disputes relevant to a state prisoner’s claim.”
Michael Carter v. Stephen Duncan  ·  2016-03-30  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  4 pin-cites  ·  pin 131 L. Ed. 2d at 170
“[R]eview under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that ad‐ judicated the claim on the merits.”
Page 1 of 3   Next →