Barefoot v. Estelle
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
166 later cases cite Barefoot v. Estelle; 166 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Barefoot v. Estelle?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Superseded by Statute
-
The Supreme Court held that AEDPA displaced Barefoot's certificate-of-probable-cause regime for appeals initiated after AEDPA took effect and narrowed its substantial-showing standard from the denial of a federal right to the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack v. McDaniel · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Under AEDPA, a COA may not issue unless “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 12253(c) (1994 ed., Supp. III). Except for substituting the word “constitutional” for the word “federal,” § 2253 is a codification of the CPC standard announced in Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S., at 894. Congress had before it the meaning Barefoot had given to the words it selected; and we give the language found in § 2253(c) the meaning ascribed it in Barefoot, with due note for the substitution of the word “constitutional.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Barefoot v. Estelle and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace