RUNFOLA, ROSS T. v. SIEGEL, KELLEHER & KAHN

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Brady claim was ripe at time of first petition because predicate act for claim had already occurred when petitioner filed first petition
• deciding that petitioner’s claims alleging Brady violations and defense counsel’s ineffectiveness were not unripe at the time he filed his initial habeas petition because the facts underlying those claims already occurred
• finding second-in-time petition “second or successive” under § 2244(b)(2)(B) where the factual predicates of his Brady and ineffective-assistance claims “had already occurred when he filed his petition, although Wogenstahl was unaware of these facts.”
• finding a petition second or successive where it raised claims that were not raised in the first petition, and were based on newly discovered evidence, but the factual predicate for those claims existed at the time of the first petition
• second Brady claim was distinct from first where it involved different evidence that undermined distinct aspects of the trial
• discussing § 2244(b)’s “second or successive” standard

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).