Winn v. Griffin ex rel. Stuyvesant Insurance Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that decisions implicating federal habeas corpus law are “of no 8 The United States Supreme Court, in McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013
• holding that lowering the bar in federal habeas corpus law is not relevant to the way Pennsylvania courts apply the plain language of the PCRA’s time-bar exceptions
• holding that lowering the bar in federal habeas corpus law is not relevant to the way Pennsylvania courts apply the plain language of the PCRA’s time-bar exceptions
• holding that “while Martinez represents a significant development in federal habeas corpus law, it is of no moment with respect to the way Pennsylvania courts apply the plain language of the time bar set forth in section 9545(b)(1) of the PCRA.”
• holding that “[w]hile Martinez represents a significant development in federal habeas corpus law, it is of no moment with respect to the way Pennsylvania courts apply the plain language of the time bar set forth in section 9545(b)(1) of the PCRA”
• holding that “[w]hile Martinez represents a significant development in federal habeas corpus law, it is of no moment with respect to the way Pennsylvania courts apply the plain language of the time bar set forth in section 9545(b)(1) of the PCRA”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).