From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saporito v. Astrue

U.S.
Jan 7, 2008
552 U.S. 1116 (2008)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

recognizing that, "[o]riginally, criminal defendants whose convictions were final were entitled to federal habeas relief only if the court that rendered the judgment under which they were in custody lacked jurisdiction to do so."

Summary of this case from Reber v. Steele
See 6 Summaries

Opinion

No. 07–7418.

2008-01-7

Richard L. SAPORITO, petitioner, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security.

Case below, 248 Fed.Appx. 311.

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

Summaries of

Saporito v. Astrue

U.S.
Jan 7, 2008
552 U.S. 1116 (2008)

recognizing that, "[o]riginally, criminal defendants whose convictions were final were entitled to federal habeas relief only if the court that rendered the judgment under which they were in custody lacked jurisdiction to do so."

Summary of this case from Reber v. Steele

recognizing that, "[o]riginally, criminal defendants whose convictions were final were entitled to federal habeas relief only if the court that rendered the judgment under which they were in custody lacked jurisdiction to do so."

Summary of this case from Yellowbear v. Wyoming Attorney General

noting that "[m]uch of the reasoning applicable to applications for writs of habeas corpus filed pursuant to § 2254 seems equally applicable in the context of § 2255 motions"

Summary of this case from Rhode v. U.S.

In Danforth, the Supreme Court addressed the question whether a state habeas court is constrained by a federal court determination that, under Teague, a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure is not retroactively applicable on collateral review.

Summary of this case from Delgadillo v. Woodford

In Danforth the Court agreed with Minnesota's argument that it "may grant its citizens broader protection than the Federal Constitution requires by enacting appropriate legislation or by judicial interpretation of its own Constitution."

Summary of this case from State v. Smart

In Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1029, 169 L.Ed.2d 859 (2008), the United States Supreme Court held that under the Teague analysis a state supreme court may give broader application to a new rule than is given by the United States Supreme Court.

Summary of this case from Ferguson v. State
Case details for

Saporito v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD L. SAPORITO v. ASTRUE, COMM'R, SOCIAL SEC

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jan 7, 2008

Citations

552 U.S. 1116 (2008)
128 S. Ct. 916
169 L. Ed. 2d 859
76 U.S.L.W. 3346

Citing Cases

People v. Davis

Flowers, 138 Ill. 2d at 237-38. In the supplemental briefs filed pursuant to this court's order, the parties…

Danforth v. State

In Danforth, we held that we were required to follow the standard for retroactivity of new rules of…

38 Citing Cases