In Re John Paul Minarik

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that if habeas petitioner could “show that he would have been entitled to pursue his second petition under pre-AEDPA law,” then retroactivity principles preclude “applying AEDPA’s new substantive gatekeeping provisions to bar his claims”
• discussing Landgraf's requirements in AEDPA context and concluding \Congress did not clearly express its intent\
• discussing Landgraf s requirements in AEDPA context and concluding “Congress did not clearly express its intent”
• concluding, after thorough analysis, that Lindh did not mandate application of amended section 2244's limitation on the filing of second or successive federal habeas petitions to a case in which its application would have a genuine retroactive effect
• interpreting Lindh as holding that the post-AEDPA S 2254 applies to petitions filed after April 24, 1996
• describing Landgraf as \the landmark case which establishes the analytical framework governing retroactivity issues\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).