Case Citator › Allen v. Hardy

Allen v. Hardy

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
478 U.S. 255
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
33 of 33
Citing cases (total)
33
Treatment dates
1989
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Allen v. Hardy's holding that Batson does not apply to convictions final before Batson remains in force, but its method for deciding retroactivity on federal collateral review has been limited. All 33 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Teague v. Lane retained Allen's Batson result while proposing a different general test; the Supreme Court subsequently applied that test in Penry v. Lynaugh. The confirmed limitation is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

33 later cases cite Allen v. Hardy; 33 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 Allen v. Hardy?

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

Limited

  • The Teague plurality retained Allen's Batson nonretroactivity result but replaced its Linkletter balancing method with a different test for new criminal procedure rules on collateral review; the Court later applied that test in Penry.

    Teague v. Lane · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    In Allen v. Hardy, the Court held that Batson constituted an “explicit and substantial break with prior precedent” because it overruled a portion of Swain. 478 U. S., at 258. Employing the retroactivity standard of Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 636 (1965), the Court concluded that the rule announced in Batson should not be applied retroactively on collateral review of convictions that became final before Batson was announced. ... This retroactivity determination would normally entail application of the Linkletter standard, but we believe that our approach to retroactivity for cases on collateral review requires modification. ... We find these criticisms to be persuasive, and we now adopt Justice Harlan’s view of retroactivity for cases on collateral review.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Allen v. Hardy 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