Flores-Ramirez v. Foster

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that second-in-time petition was not “successive” when it was based on events occurring after the first federal habeas petition was resolved
• finding that claim related to petitioner's post-conviction proceedings was unripe at the time of his first petition because those proceedings had not yet occurred, and accordingly claim related to proceedings was not \second or successive\ for purposes of § 2244
• “It is well established that the Constitution does not guarantee any postconviction process, much less specific rights during a postconviction hearing.”
• “It is well established that the Constitution does not guarantee any postconviction process, much less specific rights during a postconviction hearing.”
• “It is well established that the Constitution does not guarantee any postconviction process, much less specific rights during a postconviction hearing.”
• petitioner’s claim that he “did not receive a fair hearing on his postconviction motion” was not cognizable on federal habeas review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Slack v. McDaniel
  Supreme Court· 2000-04-26· cited 41,291×
• Ford v. Wainwright
  Supreme Court· 1986-06-26· cited 1,525×
• Panetti v. Quarterman
  Supreme Court· 2007-06-28· cited 1,422×
• Murray v. Giarratano
  Supreme Court· 1989-06-23· cited 547×
• Lane v. Brown
  Supreme Court· 1963-03-18· cited 460×
• Jerry L. Montgomery v. Christopher E. Meloy, Superintendent, (Two Cases)
  Seventh Circuit· 1996-07-15· cited 76×
• Tompkins v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
  Eleventh Circuit· 2009-02-09· cited 70×
• Word v. Lord
  Second Circuit· 2011-05-13· cited 33×
• United States v. Khaled Obeid
  Seventh Circuit· 2013-02-22· cited 31×

Other cases named Flores-Ramirez v. Foster

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Flores-Ramirez v. Foster
  Supreme Court· 2017-03-20