Maryland Casualty Co. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Neal

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that \any post-judgment motion in a criminal proceeding that fits the description of sec. 2255 para. 1 is a motion under sec. 2255\
• holding that Evans’ motion for a new trial, which argued a claim governed by § 2255 ¶ 1, is a collateral attack and, because it is his second, it is sub- ject to ¶ 8
• finding that a petitioner who alleged he had “newly discovered evidence” was not entitled to a second round of review without a demonstration of actual prejudice.
• use of Rule 33 based on matters other than newly discovered evidence of inno- cence
• discussing Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).