green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Riley v. Plaintiff's or D.A.
The limitation period runs from the latest of: 16 (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; 17 18 (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, 19 if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; 20 (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized 21 by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme 22 Court and ma…
discussed
Cited "see"
Scott M. Smith v. State of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections
See Paris v. Turner, No. 97-4129, 1999 WL 357815 , at *2-*3 (6th Cir. May 26, 1999) (unpublished opinion), (holding in part that due to counsel’s delay in informing defendant of the decision on his first appeal of right and counsel’s “failure] to communicate to his client how to proceed with further appeals,” it cannot “fairly be said that [the defendant] truly had his first appeal of right”), cert, denied, 529 U.S. 1104 , 120 S.Ct. 1846 , 146 L.Ed.2d 788 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith v. State of OH
See Paris v. Turner, No. 97-4129, 1999 WL 357815 , at *2-*3 (6th Cir. May 26, 1999) (unpublished opinion) (holding in part that due to counsel’s delay in informing defendant of the decision on his first appeal of right and counsel’s “fail[ure] to communicate to his client how to proceed with further appeals,” it cannot “fairly be said that [the defendant] truly had his first appeal of right”), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Smith v. Terhune
See Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1005-06 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 , 120 S.Ct. 1846 , 146 L.Ed.2d 787 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rodriguez v. Tristan
See Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.1999) cert denied, 529 U.S. 1104 , 120 S.Ct. 1846 , 146 L.Ed.2d 787 , (2000) (holding that the statute of limitation is tolled until the California Supreme Court rejects a petitioner’s collateral challenge).
discussed
Cited "see"
Holloway v. Roe
See Saffold v. Newland, 250 F.3d 1262, 1266-68 (9th Cir.2000) (concluding that the entire period from the filing of petitioner’s first state habeas petition in California’s Superior Court until the denial of his petition by the California Supreme Court was tolled); accord Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1005-06 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 , 120 S.Ct. 1846 , 146 L.Ed.2d 787 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Tony Eugene Saffold v. Anthony Newland
See Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir.1999), ce rt. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 , 120 S.Ct. 1846 , 146 L.Ed.2d 787 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pearson v. North Carolina
Every circuit to consider the question has agreed that “proper calculation of Section 2244(d)(2)’s tolling provision excludes time during which properly filed state relief applications are pending but does not reset the date from which the one-year statute of limitations begins to run.” Id., at 17 ; accord, Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006-07 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 , 120 S.Ct. 1846 , 146 L.Ed.2d 787 (2000); Gaskins v. Duval 183 F.3d 8, 9-10 (1st Cir.1999); Haney v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217, 1220-21 (10th Cir.1999); Fisher v. Johnson, 174 F.3d 710, 712 (5th Cir.1999)…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Curiel v. Fleker
(2×)
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(A); Smith v. Bowersox, 159 F.3d 345, 347-48 (8th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1187 , 119 S.Ct. 1133 , 143 L.Ed.2d 126 (1999); see also Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 , 120 S.Ct. 1846 , 146 L.Ed.2d 787 (2000) (AEDPA statute of limitations is not tolled between the conviction’s finality and the filing of the first state collateral challenge).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Culver v. Director of Corrections
Saffold, 536 U.S. at 219-20 , 122 S.Ct. 2134 ; see also Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 , 120 S.Ct. 1846 , *1140 146 L.Ed.2d 787 (2000); see also Cal. Ct. R. 29.4(b)(2)(C); Corjasso v. Ayers, 278 F.3d 874 , 880 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002) (orders of the California Supreme Court denying habeas petitions are final upon filing).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Essic Fail v. Suzanne Hubbard, Warden
(2×)
See, e.g., Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006-07 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 , 120 S.Ct. 1846 , 146 L.Ed.2d 787 (2000).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Essic Fail v. Suzanne Hubbard, Warden
See, e.g., Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006-07 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 , 120 S.Ct. 1846 , 146 L.Ed.2d 787 (2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Murchinson
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 99-8887.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 1, 2000.
529 U.S. 1104
Published
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.