Brian Dennis Shannon v. Anthony Newland, Warden

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that § 2244(d)(1)(B) could not be construed to apply to state court decision clarifying its own substantive or procedural law
• holding that change in state law does not qualify as removal of “impediment” under subsection (B) or “factual 28 predicate” under subsection (D)
• holding that an intervening state court decision does not constitute a “factual predicate” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D)—a provision similar to § 2255(f)(4)
• holding that a legal decision that does not affect petitioner’s own criminal history constitutes a ruling of law and does not create a new factual predicate for a federal habeas claim
• explaining that a state court decision clarifying or re-defining state law does not trigger § 2244(d)(1)(D) unless the petitioner was party to that case
• explaining that a state court decision clarifying or re-defining state law does not trigger § 2244(d)(1)(D) unless the petitioner was party to that case.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).