Mark v. Ault

How courts have described this case

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

• “[W]e apply the AEDPA standard to . . . the ‘last reasoned decision’ of the state courts.” (quoting Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 804 (1991))
• “‘[F]ailure to raise or discuss an issue in his brief [would] be deemed an abandonment of that issue.’” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)
• “[F]or the purposes of this appeal we will assume without deciding that the new evidence serves only to bolster [the petitioner’s] claim of constitutional error under Brady and does not present a new, unexhausted claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).