Case Citator › Leif Taylor v. Thomas M. Maddox, Interim Director George Galaza Cal Terhune

Leif Taylor v. Thomas M. Maddox, Interim Director George Galaza Cal Terhune

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

Abrogated
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
366 F.3d 992
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
133 of 133
Citing cases (total)
789
Treatment dates
2011–2023
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Abrogated in part: all 133 flagged citations for Leif Taylor v. Thomas M. Maddox have been read, with the 2 confirmed treatments listed below. Cullen v. Pinholster, as recognized by the Ninth Circuit in Murray v. Schriro, foreclosed Taylor's suggestion that a petitioner could introduce new evidence in federal court after state findings survived intrinsic review.
More on how this was screened

Taylor's distinct § 2254(d)(2) rules for record-based and materially defective-process challenges remain widely applied. One Eleventh Circuit opinion separately declined to follow Taylor's limitation of § 2254(e)(1), while the other reviewed opinions applied the surviving rules or merely reported the Pinholster/Murray history.

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.

789 later cases cite Leif Taylor v. Thomas M. Maddox, Interim Director George Galaza Cal Terhune; 133 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 Leif Taylor v. Thomas M. Maddox, Interim Director George Galaza Cal Terhune?

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

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court foreclosed Taylor's proposed extrinsic-evidence step by limiting AEDPA merits review to the record before the state court; the Ninth Circuit recognized that consequence in Murray v. Schriro.

    Cullen v. Pinholster · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We now hold that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The Eleventh Circuit applied contrary circuit law and declined Taylor's rule that § 2254(e)(1)'s clear-and-convincing presumption is limited to challenges presenting new federal-court evidence.

    Stinski v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison · Eleventh Circuit · filed

    But we rejected the Ninth Circuit’s approach in Pye, where we articulated and applied a contrary standard.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Leif Taylor v. Thomas M. Maddox, Interim Director George Galaza Cal Terhune 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