Lo v. Endicott

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “‘a state court decision modifying substantive law” does not constitute a factual predicate under § 2244(d)(1)(D)
• finding that under § 2244(d)(1)(c), a parallel limitations provision to § 2255(f)(4), state court rulings that modify the substantive law do not constitute a “factual predicate”
• state supreme court’s clarification of the law is not a “factual predicate” under § 2255(f)(4)
• to conclude “that any decision by any court on any issue could constitute a factual predicate would swallow up the specifically delineated limitations” in § 2255(f)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).