De Armond v. Gurney

How courts have described this case

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

• refusing to address new arguments raised in the traverse that were not in the petition because a traverse or reply is not the proper pleading in which to raise additional grounds for habeas relief
• refusing to address new arguments raised in the traverse that were not in the petition because a traverse or reply is not the proper pleading in which to raise additional grounds for habeas relief
• a traverse or reply is not the proper pleading to make new arguments or raise additional grounds for relief
• “To the extent that petitioner’s traverse could be read to raise new arguments In his Objections, Petitioner appears to raise two challenges to Judge Davison’s rejection of his claims: (1
• “To the extent petitioner’s traverse could be read to raise new arguments that are not in his petition, they will not be considered because a traverse or reply is not the proper pleading in which to raise additional grounds for habeas relief.”
• “To the extent that petitioner’s traverse could be read to raise new arguments that are not in his petition, they will not be considered because a traverse or reply is not the proper pleading in which to raise additional grounds for habeas relief.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).