| Banister v. Davis | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Decided June 1, 2020 | |
| Full case name | Banister v. Davis |
| Docket no. | 18-6943 |
| Citations | 590 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 | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kagan, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh |
| Dissent | Alito, 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.
References
- Banister v. Davis, No. 18-6943, 590 U.S. ___ (2020).
- "Opinion analysis: Justices reaffirm distinction between first and second habeas petitions". SCOTUSblog. 2020-06-03. Retrieved 2024-11-21.
External links
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. "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 Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |