Case Citator › Nevers v. Killinger

Nevers v. Killinger

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

Overruled in part
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
169 F.3d 352
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
37 of 37
Citing cases (total)
37
Treatment dates
2000–2004
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Nevers v. Killinger's test for unreasonable state court decisions under federal habeas law was displaced by Williams v. Taylor. The Sixth Circuit identified that change in Harris v. Stovall.
More on how this was screened

All 37 flagged citations have been read; the 3 confirmed treatments are listed below. Nevers's separate analysis of pretrial publicity and outside influence on juries continues to be cited.

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.

37 later cases cite Nevers v. Killinger; 37 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 Nevers v. Killinger?

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

Overruled in part

  • Williams rejected the reasonable jurist test that Nevers had used to decide whether a state court unreasonably applied federal law.

    Williams v. Taylor · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We are convinced that that interpretation of the amendment is incorrect. It would impose a test for determining when a legal rule is clearly established that simply cannot be squared with the real practice of decisional law.9 It would apply a standard for determining the “reasonableness” of state-court decisions that is not contained in the statute itself, and that Congress surely did not intend.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The Second Circuit required review of a state court's application of Chapman when the state court expressly found a constitutional error harmless, declining Nevers's Brecht-only approach.

    Gutierrez v. McGinnis · Second Circuit · filed

    Mitchell signals, and we therefore hold, that when a state court explicitly conducts harmless error review of a constitutional error, a habeas court must evaluate whether the state unreasonably applied Chapman. ... Other Circuits have held Brecht to be the sole standard required. See, e.g., Nevers v. Killinger, 169 F.3d 352, 371 (6th Cir.1999)
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Questioned

  • The Eighth Circuit doubted Nevers's view that Brecht harmless error review remained required after AEDPA, but did not decide the issue.

    Whitmore v. Kemna · Eighth Circuit · filed

    As the District Court noted, the Sixth Circuit is of the opinion that federal courts should continue to apply the actual prejudice standard of Brecht on § 2254 review despite the AEDPA amendments to the statute. See Nevers v. Killinger, 169 F.3d 352, 371 (6th Cir.) ... We are not convinced that the AEDPA did not abrogate the requirement that federal habeas courts conduct a harmless error analysis under Brecht in situations such as the one before us
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Nevers v. Killinger 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