Vaughan v. Gill

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that different reasons for claiming ineffective assistance constitute different claims 28 for exhaustion purposes
• noting that an appellant should file a motion asking the district court whether it is willing to entertain a Rule 60(b) motion, and subsequently move this court to remand the case
• rejecting assertion that Arizona courts’ 28 application of procedural default rules were “unpredictable and irregular”
• rejecting assertion that Arizona courts' application of procedural default rules 13 were \unpredictable and irregular\
• rejecting argument that application of Arizona procedural rules “was so 19 unpredictable and irregular that it does not provide an adequate ground for disposal of 20 [petitioner’s] claims.”
• rejecting argument that application of Arizona procedural rules “was 11 so unpredictable and irregular that it does not provide an adequate ground for disposal of 12 [petitioner’s] claims.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).