Seventh Circuit· 5/19/2022

Peter Whyte v. Dan Winkleski

Citations

34 F.4th 617

How courts have described this case

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

holding that an analogous Wisconsin postconviction pleading standard is an independent procedural rule
stating that Allen’s pleading standard “is an adequate and independent state procedural rule”
noting “[t]hat the conclusion of procedural default preceded rather than proceeded from an explanation of Allen is of no consequence.”
“This court has held that Escalona-Naranjo’s bar constitutes an adequate and independent state procedural ground, which forecloses federal review.”
“Second, Winston asserted in his opposition brief how his case is distinguished from Whyte [sic].”
“Even if the court also rejected Whyte’s claim as meritless, our review is foreclosed when adequate and independent state law grounds are sufficient to resolve the dispute.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brennan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.