Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes
| Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided May 4, 1992 | |
| Full case name | Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes |
| Citations | 504 U.S. 1 (more) |
| Holding | |
| A cause-and-prejudice standard, rather than Fay v. Noia's deliberate bypass standard, is the correct standard for excusing a habeas corpus petitioner's failure to develop a material fact in state-court proceedings. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Souter, Thomas |
| Dissent | O'Connor, joined by Blackmun, Stevens, Kennedy |
| Dissent | Kennedy |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
| Townsend v. Sain | |
Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a cause-and-prejudice standard, rather than Fay v. Noia's deliberate bypass standard, is the correct standard for excusing a habeas corpus petitioner's failure to develop a material fact in state-court proceedings.[1] This decision increased the deference that federal courts are supposed to give to the record in underlying state court proceedings when evaluating habeas petitions.[2]
References
[edit]External links
[edit]This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain. "[T]he Court is unanimously of opinion that no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this Court." Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 668 (1834)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |