Gibson v. Dale

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that our post-conviction habeas corpus statutes contemplate that persons convicted of crimes are ordinarily entided to only one post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding during which all known grounds for relief must be raised
• “[T]he post-conviction habeas corpus statute leaves the decision of whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing ... in large part to the sound discretion of the court before which the writ is made returnable.”
• [T]he post-conviction habeas corpus statute leaves the decision of whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing . . . in large part to the sound discretion of the court before which the writ is made returnable.”
• “[T]he post- conviction habeas corpus statute leaves the decision of whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing . . . in large part to the sound discretion of the court before which the writ is made returnable.”
• “In essence, then, the post-conviction habeas corpus statute leaves the decision of whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to compel the State to produce evidence in its possession in large part to the sound discretion of the court before which the writ is made returnable.”
• “In essence, then, the post-conviction habeas corpus statute leaves the decision of whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to compel the State to produce evidence in its possession in large part to the sound discretion of the court before which the writ is made returnable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).