Fifth Circuit· 4/10/2008

Starns v. Andrews

Citations

524 F.3d 612
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 7751
2008 WL 963404

How courts have described this case

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

holding that a petitioner did not fail to act with due diligence given the state’s misleading suggestion
holding that a petitioner did not fail to act with due diligence given the state’s misleading suggestion
explaining that the relevant question in determining due diligence is “whether the petitioner should be expected to take actions which would lead him to the information.”
in habeas proceeding, reviewing claim for plain error because party failed to raise it as objection to R & R
“The question is, therefore, whether [petitioner] made reasonable efforts to pursue relief until she learned of counsel’s ineffectiveness.” (emphasis added)
“[I]f a party did not object to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, that party may not attack the proposed factual findings or legal conclusions except upon the grounds of plain error.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Smith, Prado, Yeakel

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.