E.D. New York· 9/15/2011

Graves v. Smith

Citations

811 F. Supp. 2d 601
2011 WL 4347881

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that a Rule 60(b) motion was not a successive habeas petition because it argued “that the court’s procedures . . . did not adequately protect [the petitioner’s] right to due process”
treating claim that petitioner was denied full evidentiary hearing as procedural, and thus properly brought under Rule 60(b)
treating claim that petitioner was denied full evidentiary hearing as procedural, and thus properly brought under Rule 60(b)
“A successive habeas petition must be pre-certified by the Court of Appeals as falling within one of [the exceptions under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Jack B. Weinstein

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.