Jump to content

Banister v. Davis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Banister v. Davis
Decided June 1, 2020
Full case nameBanister v. Davis
Docket no.18-6943
Citations590 U.S. ___ (more)
Holding
A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend a habeas court’s judgment is not a second or successive habeas petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityKagan
DissentAlito, joined by Thomas
Laws applied
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend a habeas court’s judgment is not a second or successive habeas petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.[1][2]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Banister v. Davis, No. 18-6943, 590 U.S. ___ (2020).
  2. ^ "Opinion analysis: Justices reaffirm distinction between first and second habeas petitions". SCOTUSblog. 2020-06-03. Retrieved 2024-11-21.
[edit]
  • Text of Banister v. Davis, No. 18-6943, 590 U.S. ___ (2020) is available from: Justia

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)