| 词条 | Slack v. McDaniel |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Slack v. McDaniel |ArgueDate=October 4 |ArgueYear=1999 |ReargueDate=March 29 |ReargueYear=2000 |DecideDate=April 26 |DecideYear=2000 |FullName=Antonio Slack v. McDaniel, Warden, et al. |USVol=529 |USPage=473 |ParallelCitations=120 S. Ct. 1595; 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 |Prior= |Subsequent= |Holding= |SCOTUS=1994–2005 |Majority=Kennedy |JoinMajority=unanimous court (part I); Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg (part II); Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer (parts III, IV) |Concurrence=Stevens |JoinConcurrence=Souter, Breyer |Concurrence/Dissent=Scalia |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=Thomas |LawsApplied= }}Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a certificate of appealability must be issued by a circuit Justice of judge before an appeal can proceed. The certificate of appealability (COA) may only be issued if the applicant "has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."[1] References1. ^{{ussc|name=Slack v. McDaniel|volume=529|page=473|pin=483|year=2000}}. External links
| case = Slack v. McDaniel, {{Ussc|529|473|2000|el=no}} | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/529/473/ | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep529/usrep529473/usrep529473.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/98-6322{{SCOTUS-stub}} 3 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court|2000 in United States case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。