Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Liepelt

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that cross-examination of a defendant about his pre-arrest silence regarding his defense of self-defense did not violate his right to silence under the Fifth Amendment
• alleged violation of Article 111(a) 180-day time provision and other alleged IADA violations not cognizable under § 2254 as they did not constitute fundamental defects
• violations of IAD are not “fundamental defects” indicating a “miscarriage of justice” so as to be cognizable in federal habeas proceeding
• violations of IAD are not \fundamental defects\ indicating a \miscarriage of justice\ so as to be cognizable in federal habeas proceeding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).