Contrary to means “‘diametrically different,’ ‘opposite in character or nature,’ or ‘mutually opposed.’” Id. A state court decision can be “contrary to” federal law in two ways:
Contrary to means that the state court decision "contradicts the United States Supreme Court on a settled question of law or holds differently than did that Court on a set of materially indistinguishable facts." Kimbrough v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections, 565 F.3d 796, 799 (11th Cir. 2009). See also Bell v.
Contrary to provision means the state court failed to apply the holding of a Supreme Court case, or made a decision contrary to the holding of a Supreme Court case when the facts that were presented were “materially indistinguishable” from those in the cited decision. Id.
More Definitions of Contrary to
Contrary to means the state court applied a rule different from the governing law set forth in Supreme Court cases, or decided a case differently than the Supreme Court on materially indistinguishable facts Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002)
Contrary to means the state court applied “a rule different from the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases,” or it decided a case differently than the Supreme Court has done “on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694, 122 S. Ct. 1843, 1850 (2002). A state court’s
Contrary to means it is impossible to comply with both state law and HIPAA
Contrary to. ’ means, in essence, that it is impossible to comply with both the federal and state law, or the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment or execution of the purpose of the Privacy Rule. Given this narrow interpretation of ‘‘contrary,’’ it is rare that a state law will be truly ‘‘contrary to’’ a provision of the Privacy Rule, as both authorities are (almost always)
Contrary to prong of § 2254(d)(1) means that a state court decision “arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law” or “confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrives at [an opposite] result.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405 (2000). In other words, “the state court’s decision must be substantially different from the relevant [Supreme Court] precedent.” Id.
Contrary to means “diametrically different,” “opposite in character or nature,” or “mutually opposed.” Id. The “contrary to” prong of AEDPA applies when “the state court reaches a conclusion opposite to the Supreme Court‟s own conclusion on a question of law or decides the case differently where the Supreme Court was confronted by a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” McMullen, 562 F.3d at
Contrary to means completely opposite to