Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Virgin Islands opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virgin Islands courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
George v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2014Significantly, application of the abuse of the writ doctrine is not automatic; it is intended to prevent instances where a prisoner uses successive habeas corpus proceedings as a mechanism to engage in “the bombardment of the judiciary.” George v. Wilson, 59 V.I. 984, 990 (V.I. 2013). 2014See George v. Wilson, 59 V.I. 984, 989-90 (V.I. 2013) (citing Ibrahim for the standard applicable when actually reviewing issues raised on a habeas petition, and affirming denial of a seventh successive habeas corpus petition — not pursuant to any per se ban focusing on whether issues were raised in the criminal trial or appeal — but “using the equitable principle of the abuse of the writ doctrine,” which prohibits multiple successive habeas corpus petitions raising new habeas contentions unless the petitioner can show “cause and prejudice” for omitting the current arguments from his several p | 2 | 2 |
Hughley v. Government of the Virgin Islandsgreen1 sentence2016The following year, this Court declined to apply either the Ibrahim!Rodriguez rule or the abuse of the writ doctrine to a case where an issue raised in a habeas corpus petition had been rejected on the merits in the petitioner’s prior appeals to the Appellate Division and the Third Circuit, because “the very creation of this Court constitutes genuinely exceptional circumstances for disregarding . . . prior decisions of the Appellate Division and the Third Circuit, even in cases involving the same parties.” Hughley v. Gov’t of the V.I., 61 V.I. 323, 337 (V.I. 2014) (internal quotation marks and | 1 | 1 |
Bryan v. Government of the Virgin Islandsgreen1 sentence2014See George v. Wilson, 59 V.I. 984, 989-90 (V.I. 2013) (citing Ibrahim for the standard applicable when actually reviewing issues raised on a habeas petition, and affirming denial of a seventh successive habeas corpus petition — not pursuant to any per se ban focusing on whether issues were raised in the criminal trial or appeal — but “using the equitable principle of the abuse of the writ doctrine,” which prohibits multiple successive habeas corpus petitions raising new habeas contentions unless the petitioner can show “cause and prejudice” for omitting the current arguments from his several p | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2013See Palmer v. Dermitt, 102 Idaho 591 , 635 P.2d 955, 959 (1981) (applying the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine to the first habeas petition following direct appeal) (citing Sanders, 373 U.S. 1 ). | 1 | 1 |
Wise v. Fulcomergreen2 sentences2013Under the abuse of the writ doctrine, a court is not required to consider a subsequent habeas corpus petition if the claim could have been raised earlier unless the petitioner can show “cause and prejudice.” Wise v. Fulcomer, 958 F.2d 30, 34 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 492-95 , 111 S. Ct. 1454 , 113 L. 2013Under the abuse of the writ doctrine, a court is not required to consider a subsequent habeas corpus petition if the claim could have been raised earlier unless the petitioner can show “cause and prejudice.” Wise v. Fulcomer, 958 F.2d 30, 34 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 492-95 , 111 S. Ct. 1454 , 113 L. | 1 | 1 |
Palmer v. Dermittred2 sentences2013See Palmer v. Dermitt, 102 Idaho 591 , 635 P.2d 955, 959 (1981) (applying the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine to the first habeas petition following direct appeal) (citing Sanders, 373 U.S. 1 ). 2013See Palmer v. Dermitt, 102 Idaho 591 , 635 P.2d 955, 959 (1981) (applying the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine to the first habeas petition following direct appeal) (citing Sanders, 373 U.S. 1 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virgin Islands. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCleskey v. Zant
red
2 sentences2013Under the abuse of the writ doctrine, a court is not required to consider a subsequent habeas corpus petition if the claim could have been raised earlier unless the petitioner can show “cause and prejudice.” Wise v. Fulcomer, 958 F.2d 30, 34 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 492-95 , 111 S. Ct. 1454 , 113 L. 2013Under the abuse of the writ doctrine, a court is not required to consider a subsequent habeas corpus petition if the claim could have been raised earlier unless the petitioner can show “cause and prejudice.” Wise v. Fulcomer, 958 F.2d 30, 34 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 492-95 , 111 S. Ct. 1454 , 113 L. | 2 | 2013–2014 |
Manlove v. Sullivan
green
1 sentence2013Manlove, 775 P.2d at 241-42 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.