Perez v. United States, 535 U.S. 1004 (2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Perez v. United States, 535 U.S. 1004 (2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“we hold that the operative date under 2255(4) is not the date the state conviction was vacated, but rather the date on which the defendant learned, or with due diligence should have learned, the facts supporting his claim to vacate the state conviction.”
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Charles Larry Jones v. United States (ca11, 2002-06-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Charles Larry Jones v. United States
11th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269, 1271 (11th Cir.1999) (per curiam); see Brackett v. United States, 270 F.3d 60, 66 (1st Cir.2001) (“The Supreme Court commonly interprets § 2255 and § 2254 in light of each other.”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1575 , 152 L.Ed.2d 495 (2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Perez
v.
United States
01-8789.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 15, 2002.
535 U.S. 1004
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 85%
Citer courts: D. South Carolina (1)

535 U.S. 1004

PEREZ
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 01-8789.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 15, 2002.

1

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.