Smith v. Brunsman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that second-in-time petition was not “successive” when it was based on events occurring after the first federal habeas petition was resolved
• finding that claim related to petitioner's post-conviction proceedings was unripe at the time of his first petition because those proceedings had not yet occurred, and accordingly claim related to proceedings was not \second or successive\ for purposes of § 2244
• “It is well established that the Constitution does not guarantee any postconviction process, much less specific rights during a postconviction hearing.”
• “It is well established that the Constitution does not guarantee any postconviction process, much less specific rights during a postconviction hearing.”
• “It is well established that the Constitution does not guarantee any postconviction process, much less specific rights during a postconviction hearing.”
• petitioner’s claim that he “did not receive a fair hearing on his postconviction motion” was not cognizable on federal habeas review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).