Starns v. Andrews

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).