Banister v. Davis
Appearance
Banister v. Davis | |
---|---|
![]() | |
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.[1][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.