In re Marriage of Weltz

How courts have described this case

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

• holding motion for reargument was properly filed in part because “capital defendants in Pennsylvania routinely seek rear-gument when their claims for relief are denied, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has granted such motions on more than one occasion”
• refusing to examine alleged errors in the application of the procedural bar to applications for postconviction relief in Louisiana Code of Criminal procedure article 930.3
• “we are disinclined to substitute our judgment for that of the Illinois courts” with respect to the application of Illinois’ post-conviction laws
• “In light of ... federalism and comity concerns ... it would seem particularly strange to disregard state ... rules that are substantially similar to those to which we give full force in our own courts.”
• “Appellant's argument in this respect is fatally underdeveloped, as it includes no analysis or application of authority in support of his contention as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b).”
• “Absent a showing of cause and prejudice, it is settled law that an independent and adequate state law ground for a state court conviction cannot be disturbed on habeas.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).