Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 1192

529IND

Unit: $UBV [10-03-01 07:01:03] PGT: INDBV (Bound Volume)

1212

INDEX

FOURTH AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law, X.

FRAUD. See Criminal Law, 2.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. See Constitutional Law, V.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH. See Constitutional Law, VI.

GENDER-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE. See Constitutional Law, I; III.

GEORGIA. See Constitutional Law, IV, 1.

GRAZING. See Taylor Grazing Act.

HABEAS CORPUS.

1. Cause for procedural default.—A procedurally defaulted ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claim can serve as cause for procedural default of
another habeas claim only if habeas petitioner can satisfy “cause and
prejudice” standard with respect to ineffective-assistance claim itself.
Edwards v. Carpenter, p. 446.

2. Development of claims in state court.—Under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(e)(2),
as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a
“fail[ure] to develop the factual basis of [a] claim in State court” is not
established unless there is a lack of diligence, or some greater fault, at-
tributable to federal habeas petitioner or his counsel. Williams v. Tay-
lor, p. 420.

3. Successive petition—Dismissal on procedural grounds.—A federal
habeas corpus petition ﬁled after an initial petition was dismissed on pro-
cedural grounds without reaching prisoner’s underlying constitutional
claim is not a “second or successive” petition subject to dismissal for abuse
of writ. Slack v. McDaniel, p. 473.

IMPRISONMENT. See Criminal Law, 5.

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. See Constitutional

Law, IX; Habeas Corpus, 1.

INFRINGEMENT OF TRADE DRESS. See Trademark Act of 1946.

IN LIMINE MOTION. See Criminal Law, 3.

JURISDICTION.

Federal-question jurisdiction—Challenge to Medicare enforcement reg-
ulations.—Title 42 U. S. C. § 405(h), incorporated into Medicare Act by 42
U. S. C. § 1331ii, sets out a special administrative and judicial review sys-
tem for Medicare claim denials that bars respondent nursing home associa-
tion from invoking federal-question jurisdiction to challenge Medicare en-
forcement regulations’ validity. Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term
Care, Inc., p. 1.