William Adams v. Bill Armontrout and William L. Webster

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that substantial compliance with Rule (c) requires the petitioner to “state specific, particularized facts which entitle him or her to habeas corpus relief for each ground specified”
• holding that “to substantially comply with the Section 2254 Rule 2(c
• holding a petitioner, to comply with Section 2254 Rule 2(c), must “state specific, particularized facts which entitle him or her to habeas corpus relief for each ground specified.”
• holding to comply with Rule 2(c) the “facts must consist of sufficient detail to enable the court to determine, from the face of the petition alone, whether the petition merits further habeas corpus review.”
• providing petitioner 60 days to refile his petition in proper form
• “Conclusory allegations ... [unsupported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).