First Circuit· 4/1/2003

Rodwell v. Pepe

Citations

324 F.3d 66
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 6223
2003 WL 1702001

How courts have described this case

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

predicting that whether AEDPA's limitations apply \will depend not on the label affixed to a particular motion but on its essence\
affirming the district court's dismissal of an SSHP dressed as a Rule 60(b) motion
“The law of the case doctrine ordinarily calls for us to honor our previous assessment and there is no valid reason to do otherwise here.”
“When a motion’s factual predicate deals primarily with the constitutionality of the underlying [ ] conviction or sentence, then the motion should be treated as a second or successive habeas petition.”
“When a motion’s factual predicate deals primarily with the constitutionality of the underlying [ ] conviction or sentence, then the motion should be treated as a second or successive habeas petition.”
“[A] district judge should treat a Rule 60(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Selya, Stahl, Lynch

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Rodwell v. Pepe

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.