Ryals v. Smith

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Congress did not intend § 2254(e)(2) restrictions on evidentiary hearings to apply to \hearings on excuses to procedural defaults\
• concluding that thirty-three month delay did not excuse exhaustion under inordinate delay exception as state court ruled on Cristin’s state post-conviction petition one week after he filed his federal habeas petition
• concluding that 33 month delay did not excuse exhaustion under inordinate delay exception as state court ruled on Cristin’s state post-conviction petition one week after he filed his federal habeas petition
• concluding that thirty-three month delay did not excuse exhaustion under inordinate delay exception as state court ruled on Cristin’s state post-conviction petition one week after he filed his federal habeas petition
• concluding that thirty-three month delay did not excuse exhaustion under the inordinate delay exception as state court ruled on Cristin’s state post-conviction petition one week after he filed his federal habeas petition
• holding that a 27 month Schandelmeier was unable to show that delay was not excessive given that a “there was no opportunity for him to hearing was held and the petition was obtain redress in the state court system” ruled upon

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).