This article is missing information about the background and circumstances of the case.(April 2015) |
Teague v. Lane | |
---|---|
Argued October 4, 1988 Decided February 22, 1989 | |
Full case name | Frank Teague v. Michael P. Lane (Director of Illinois Department of Corrections) and Michael O'Leary (Warden of Stateville Correctional Center) |
Citations | 489 U.S. 288 (more) 109 S. Ct. 1060; 103 L. Ed. 2d 334 |
Case history | |
Prior | Habeas corpus petition denied by District Court; reversed, 779 F.2d 1332 (7th Cir. 1985); affirmed on rehearing en banc, 820 F.2d 832 (7th Cir. 1987). |
Subsequent | None |
Holding | |
In habeas corpus proceedings, only a limited set of important substantive or procedural rights will be enforced retroactively or announced prospectively. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, White, Scalia and Kennedy (Parts I, II, III); Blackmun, Stevens (Part II only) |
Plurality | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy (Parts IV and V) |
Concurrence | White (in part in the judgment) |
Concurrence | Blackmun (in part and in the judgment) |
Concurrence | Stevens (in part and in the judgment), joined by Blackmun (Part I only) |
Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
Overruled by | |
Edwards v. Vannoy (2021) (in part) |
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the application of newly announced rules of law in habeas corpus proceedings. This case addresses the Federal Court's threshold standard of deciding whether Constitutional claims will be heard. Application of the "Teague test" at the most basic level limits habeas corpus.