discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wyndel R. Hall v. Secretary, Department of Corrections Section 2244(d)(1) says that AEDPA’s one-year limitations period “shall run,” in circumstances like these, “from . . . the date on which the judgment became final 2 See, e.g., Kuhns v. California, 419 U.S. 1066, 1066 , 95 S. Ct. 652, 652 (1974) (mem.); Sandquist v. California, 419 U.S. 1066, 1066 , 95 S. Ct. 651 , 651 (1974) (mem.); Gotthilf v. Sills, 375 U.S. 79, 80 , 84 S. Ct. 187, 188 (1963) (per curiam); Parker v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 571 , 575– 76, 68 S. Ct. 708, 710 (1948). 15 by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. �…

discussed Cited "see" De La Cuesta v. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n X.) The United States Supreme Court has exhibited considerable restraint in finding federal preemption of state law by requiring either “such actual conflict between the two schemes of regulation that both cannot stand in the same area, [or] . .. evidence of a congressional design to preempt the field.” (Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul (1963) 373 U.S. 132, 141 [ 10 L.Ed.2d 248, 256 , 83 S.Ct. 1210 ]; accord People v. Conklin (1974) 12 Cal.3d 259, 264 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 241 , 522 P.2d 1049 ], app. dism. 419 U.S. 1064 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 661 , 95 S.Ct. 652 ].) With reference to congressional intent, t…

discussed Cited "see" Panko v. Pan American Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n X.) The United States Supreme Court has exhibited considerable restraint in finding federal preemption of state law by requiring either “such actual conflict between the two schemes of regulation that both cannot stand in the same area, [or] ... evidence of a congressional design to preempt the field.” (Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul (1963) 373 U.S. 132, 141 [ 10 L.Ed.2d 248, 256 , 83 S.Ct. 1210 ]; accord People v. Conklin (1974) 12 Cal.3d 259, 264 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 241 , 522 P.2d 1049 ], app. dism. 419 U.S. 1064 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 661 , 95 S.Ct. 652 ].) With reference to congressional intent, th…

discussed Cited "see" United States v. Clara Bell Hall (2×) People v. Jones, 30 Cal.App.3d 852 , 106 Cal.Rptr. 749 (1973), appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question, 414 U.S. 804 , 94 S.Ct. 163 , 38 L.Ed.2d 40 (1973); see People v. Conklin, 12 Cal.3d 259 , 114 Cal.Rptr. 241 , 522 P.2d 1049 (1974), appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question, 419 U.S. 1064 , 95 S.Ct. 652 , 42 L.Ed.2d 661 (1974); Halpin v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.3d 885 , 101 Cal.Rptr. 375 , 495 P.2d 1295 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 982 , 93 S.Ct. 318 , 34 L.Ed.2d 246 (1972).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Williams News 2112, 2153-57, 2187; see also People v. Conklin, 12 Cal.3d 259, 266-73 , 522 P.2d 1049, 1053-58 , 114 Cal. Rptr. 241, 245-50 (1974), appeal dismissed, 419 U.S. 1064 , 42 L.Ed.2d 661 , 95 S.Ct. 652 (1974); Commonwealth v. Vitello, 367 Mass. 224, 245-47 , 327 N.E.2d 819, 832-34 (1975).