Klein v. Martin · ¶31

The panel majority contravened these well-settled principles in two ways. First, it grounded its holding that the state appellate court applied the wrong legal rule on its conclusion that the state court had not actually applied the materiality test that it clearly invoked. Second, it erred in holding that no fairminded jurist could find the forensic report on the computer to be immaterial.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.