In Re Schwab

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding a claim did not satisfy § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) because, inter alia, it “does not assert a constitutional error, just a change in the opinion of an expert witness”
• denying a death row inmate’s application for a successive habeas petition premised on a change of expert opinion purporting to establish the inmate’s “innocen[ce] of the death penalty,” because (1
• denying a death row inmate’s application for a successive habeas petition premised on a change of expert opinion purporting to establish the inmate’s “inno- cen[ce] of the death penalty,” because (1
• denying a death row inmate’s application for a successive habeas petition premised on a change of expert opinion purporting to establish the inmate’s “innocen[ce] of the death penalty,” because (1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In Re Lambrix
  Eleventh Circuit· 2010-10-26· cited 184×
• In re: Warren Lee Hill, Jr.
  Eleventh Circuit· 2013-04-22· cited 33×
• In re: Cary Michael Lambrix
  Eleventh Circuit· 2010-10-26

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Mark Dean Schwab v. James v. Crosby, Jr.
  Eleventh Circuit· 2006-06-15· cited 133×
• Mitchell v. Pennsylvania
  Supreme Court· 2007-01-16· cited 65×
• In re: Will C. Dean, Jr.
  Eleventh Circuit· 2003-08-13· cited 26×
• Schwab v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections
  Eleventh Circuit· 2007-11-15· cited 24×
• In Re: Angel Nieves Diaz
  Eleventh Circuit· 2006-12-11· cited 4×