7.7. Federal Appellate Review of State Cases

Through what procedural mechanism does the U.S. Supreme Court typically review cases coming from state courts?

Under what condition will the U.S. Supreme Court generally accept a case for review from a state court?

What is the key Supreme Court case mentioned in the chapter that explains when the Court will review a state court matter?

In what year was the case of Michigan v. Long decided?

According to the Michigan v. Long ruling, what presumption will the Supreme Court make when a state court decision appears to rest on federal law and the basis for the decision is unclear?

How can a state court prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from reviewing a decision that relies on federal precedents?

What does the text identify as a reason for the Supreme Court's approach in Michigan v. Long?

What will the Supreme Court do if a state court decision indicates clearly and expressly that it is based on 'bona fide separate, adequate, and independent grounds'?

The approach established in Michigan v. Long is said to improve both justice and what other aspect?

What phrase describes the situation where a state court decision is based on both federal and state law, making it difficult for the Supreme Court to determine the basis of the ruling?

What fundamental principle regarding state courts is affirmed by the Supreme Court's approach to reviewing state cases?

According to the text, what is equally important as leaving state courts free to interpret their own constitutions?

What is one stated benefit of the Michigan v. Long approach for state judges?

The Supreme Court's review of state court cases is described as what?

What potential difficulty for the U.S. Supreme Court is highlighted when state court opinions are not clearly written regarding their legal basis?

What does the text imply is the 'most reasonable explanation' when a state court decision is unclear but appears to rest on federal law?

The Michigan v. Long approach obviates the need for the Supreme Court to do what in most instances?

What danger does the Michigan v. Long approach help the Supreme Court avoid?

What is the consequence if a state court uses federal precedents merely for 'guidance' but fails to make a 'plain statement' to that effect?

The chapter states that the Supreme Court's review is generally limited to cases where state appeals processes have concluded. What might a state court have ruled on during this process?

What is the ultimate goal of the Supreme Court's approach as described in Michigan v. Long concerning federal law?

A state court decision that 'fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law' is a condition that would trigger what?

The Supreme Court's statement that 'ambiguous or obscure adjudications by state courts do not stand as barriers' refers to barriers against what?

What is the subject of the sole footnote in Chapter 7.7?

When the Supreme Court accepts review based on the Michigan v. Long presumption, it is because the adequacy and independence of what is unclear?

The 'plain statement' rule requires a state court to explicitly declare that federal cases are used for what purpose if it wishes to avoid Supreme Court review?

What is described as a 'fundamental' principle regarding the relationship between the Supreme Court and state courts in the text?

The practice of requiring state courts to clarify their decisions for the Supreme Court is described as both unsatisfactory and what?

What term describes the legal grounds of a state court decision that would prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from reviewing it?

The problem of reviewing state court decisions is compounded by the fact that the state court may have made rulings about which two bodies of law?

If a state court decision is interwoven with federal law and lacks a plain statement, the Supreme Court's review is intended to prevent what from becoming a barrier?

How does the Supreme Court's approach, as outlined in the chapter, preserve the integrity of federal law?

What action must a state court take for the Supreme Court to 'not undertake to review the decision'?

The Supreme Court's presumption in Michigan v. Long applies when the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is NOT what?

According to the chapter, which of the following is an accurate description of the Supreme Court's review process for state cases?

What is the consequence if a state court, in its opinion, chooses 'merely to rely on federal precedents as it would on the precedents of all other jurisdictions'?

The entire framework discussed in Chapter 7.7 is designed to manage the jurisdictional relationship between which two entities?

What does the text suggest about the frequency of the Supreme Court's discretionary review?

When a state court judgment has a 'plain statement' that it rests on state law, how does this affect the development of state jurisprudence?

What is the primary reason the Supreme Court would NOT accept review of a state court case?

The 'Michigan v. Long' rule is a presumption about a state court's intent when its opinion is what?

The chapter implies that before the Michigan v. Long decision, the Supreme Court might have engaged in what 'unsatisfactory and intrusive practice'?

What is the relationship between the 'plain statement' rule and the 'Michigan v. Long' presumption?

A state court decision based on 'bona fide separate, adequate, and independent grounds' means the decision rests firmly on what?

The author of Chapter 7.7 is identified as whom?

If the Supreme Court renders a decision on a federal issue in a case that also has adequate and independent state grounds, that decision would be considered what?

What is the first step a party must take to seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court of a state court decision?

The Supreme Court's federal appellate review of state cases is a reflection of which major principle of the U.S. governmental system?

When a state court's decision is based on adequate and independent state grounds, the Supreme Court's refusal to review the case shows respect for what?

Ultimately, the rules discussed in Chapter 7.7 provide a procedural framework for balancing the development of independent state jurisprudence with what other goal?