Mendes v. Brady

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Pina’s holding that a rule be “regularly and consistently applied” is no longer the standard to determine adequacy of a state procedural bar, but instead a court must ask if the rule is “invoked surprisingly or unfairly”
• finding although the “gatekeeper judge[] reference[d] [] the merits . . . [he] was not ruling on the merits . . . instead, he was simply addressing the second prong of the new-and-substantial rule . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).