No. 22-7562
Joseph Tetak v. Jay Forshey, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review constitutional-interpretation constitutional-issue deference-standard federal-habeas-corpus habeas-corpus judicial-precedent stare-decisis state-supreme-court subjective-objective-analysis
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities
SocialSecurity Securities
Latest Conference:
2023-06-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the doctrine of stare decisis prevail on a state supreme court's determination of a constitutional issue in the same manner as this Court's determination of Supreme Law?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ‘ . Does the doctrine of stare decisis prevail on a state supreme ; ; court's determination of a constitutional issue in the same manner ; , “as this Court's determination of Supreme Law? . . Does an intermediate state appellate court's decision govern the 7 : deference standard of federal habeas corpus where it conflicts : with the primary judicial policymaker's decision on the same. con; stitutional protection? : 7 : Is debatable a subjective or objective analysis? . , : i Cc a
Docket Entries
2023-06-20
Petition DENIED.
2023-05-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/15/2023.
2023-05-30
Waiver of right of respondent Forshey, Warden to respond filed.
2023-05-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 15, 2023)
Attorneys
Forshey, Warden
Benjamin Michael Flowers — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent
Benjamin Michael Flowers — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent