William Fitzgerald Seward v. State of Florida

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 Rule 60(b) motion seeking to advance substantive claims is treated as a successive habeas petition
• holding that a motion is not a true Rule 60(b) motion where the claims raised therein are based on new evidence or law
• holding that Rule 60(b)(6) relief is not available when the plaintiff had not acted diligently in pursuing review of the issue previously
• recognizing that Rule 60(b)(6) motions challenging procedural default are not barred as second or successive petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)
• concluding that a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment that directly challenges the underlying conviction constitutes a successive § 2254 petition
• holding that a change in the interpretation of AEDPA’s statute of limitations, the alleged “defect” and basis for the petitioner’s 60(b)(6

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).