Fourth Circuit· 6/27/1995

Hunt v. Nuth

Citations

57 F.3d 1327
1995 WL 377373

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that “courts generally will not address new arguments raised in a reply brief because it would be unfair to the [other party]”
explaining that “courts generally will not address new arguments raised in a reply brief because it would be unfair”
noting that failing to impeach a witness with cumulative evidence does not prejudice the petitioner
explaining that “courts generally will not address new arguments raised in a reply brief because it would be unfair to the [other party] and would risk an improvident or ill-advised opinion on the legal issues raised”
treating Rule 60(b) motion raising new claims as suc- cessive § 2254 application
refusing to indulge in a \grading of the quality of counsel's cross-examination\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Murnaghan, Russell, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

37 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

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

Other cases named Hunt v. Nuth

2 other CourtListener records share this case 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.