James E. Redd v. Sarah K. Redd

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining 1 We deny Widmyer’s motion for oral argument and assignment of counsel. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6940 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 3 of 4 that a movant under Rule 60(b
• “The Gonzalez analysis of the interplay between § 2244(b) and Rule 60(b) . . . reflects the unquestionable primacy of § 2244(b).”
• “The Gonzalez analysis of the interplay between § 2244(b) and Rule 60(b) . . . reflects the unquestionable primacy of § 2244(b).”
• “In the absence of pre-filing authorization, . . . district court[s] lack[] jurisdiction to consider [successive habeas petitions].”
• true Rule 60(b) motion “merely asserts that a previous ruling which precluded a merits determination was in error”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).