Thomas Cress v. Carmen Palmer, Warden, Riverside Correctional Facility

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that this court has “repeatedly indicated that [free-standing claims of actual innocence] are not cognizable on habeas.”
• “[W]e have repeatedly indicated that such claims [of actual inno- cence] are not cognizable on habeas.”
• “[W]e have repeatedly indicated that such claims [of actual innocence] are not cognizable on habeas.”
• “[W]e have repeatedly indicated that such claims [of actual innocence] are not cognizable on habeas.”
• “In the wake of Schlup, we have repeatedly indicated that [free-standing actual innocence] claims are not cognizable on habeas”
• “[T]he Sixth Circuit has consistently held that errors in post-conviction proceedings are outside the scope of federal habeas corpus review.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).