green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
9.9 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Richard Herman Ford v. S. Hubbard, Warden Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Richard Herman Ford v. S. Hubbard, Warden Attorney General of the State of California, Richard Herman Ford v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, S. Hubbard, Warden, Real Party in Interest. Richard Herman Ford v. S. Hubbard, Warden, Richard Herman Ford v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, S. Hubbard, Warden, Real Party in Interest
he miscalculation of the limitations period by ... counsel and his negligence in general do not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant equitable tolling.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Chavez v. Gamboa
See 26 Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2002) (appointed appellate attorney’s 27 miscalculation of deadline with respect to filing a habeas petition was not an extraordinary 28 circumstance because there is no constitutional right to counsel in state post-conviction proceedings, 1 including advice related to those proceedings); Williams v. LaMarque, 2002 WL 1766576 , at *2 (N.D. 2 Cal. 2002 ) (noting that an attorney's miscalculation of the limitations period and negligence in general 3 do not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant equitable tolling i…
discussed
Cited "see"
Culver v. Director of Corrections
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (attorney’s negligence in calculating the deadline for a federal habeas petition, resulting in a late filing, did not warrant equitable tolling), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002); see also Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1067-68 (9th Cir.) (appointed appellate counsel’s letter following direct review providing the Petitioner with an erroneous federal habeas deadline was not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1003 , 123 S.Ct. 496 , 154 L.Ed.2d 399 (2002); Majoy v. Roe…
cited
Cited "see"
Abe v. Mahoney
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Wade v. Terhune
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Morris v. Newland
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001), cert denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Bishop v. Castro
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001), cert denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Lewis
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (attorney’s negligence in calculating the deadline for a federal habeas petition, resulting in a late filing, did not warrant equitable tolling), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002); see also Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2002) (appointed appellate counsel’s letter following direct review providing the petitioner with an erroneous federal habeas deadline was not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1003 , 123 S.Ct. 496 , 154 L.Ed.2d 399 (2002); Majoy v.…
discussed
Cited "see"
Eulloqui v. Pliler
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.) (as amended) (recognizing that the lack of access to library material does not automatically qualify as grounds for equitable tolling), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002); see also Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir.), (recognizing that attorney negligence in general does not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant equitable tolling), cert, denied, 537 U.S. 1003 , 123 S.Ct. 496 , 154 L.Ed.2d 399 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Arnold v. Wal-Mart
See Mowbray v. Cameron County, Texas, 274 F.3d 269, 281 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1912 , 152 L.Ed.2d 822 (2002); Russell v. Sun-America Securities, Inc., 962 F.2d 1169, 1172 (5th Cir.1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Tjiak Wie Wong v. Lamarque
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (denying equitable tolling based on counsel’s negligence), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Ratliff v. Smith
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (denying equitable tolling based on counsel’s negligence), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Moore v. Unified School District 443
See Watts v. City of Norman, 270 F.3d 1288, 1293-94 (10th Cir.2001) (affirming summary judgment when plaintiff failed to present evidence that he was similarly situated to other employees), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1912 , 152 L.Ed.2d 822 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Richmond v. Small
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (as amended) (recognizing that the lack of access to library material does not automatically qualify as grounds for equitable tolling), cert denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002); see also Wha-lem/Hunt v. Early, 233 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
Escobar v. Newland
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (denying equitable tolling based on counsel’s negligence), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002); Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1067-68 (9th Cir.) (rejecting equitable tolling claim despite counsel’s miscalculation of the AJEDPA deadline), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 496 , 154 L.Ed.2d 399 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Ginny v. White Jimmie D. White v. Ford Motor Company, a Delaware Corporation, and Orscheln Company, a Missouri Corporation
See Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified School Dist., 251 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 645 , 151 L.Ed.2d 563 (2001). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
John C. Douglas v. Tyrell Davis
See also Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 (2002) (“conclud[ing] that the miscalculation of the limitations period by ... counsel and his negligence in general do not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant equitable tolling.”); Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2002) (“because Miranda had no right to the assistance of his appointed appellate counsel regarding post- conviction relief, it follows that he did not have the right to that attorney’s ‘effective’ assistance, either”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fain v. Mitchell
See Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1067-68 (9th Cir.) (rejecting claim of equitable tolling despite counsel’s mistaken advice about AEDPA deadline), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1003 , 123 S.Ct. 496 , 154 L.Ed.2d 399 (2002); see also Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (denying equitable tolling based on counsel’s negligence), ce rt. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ford v. Hubbard
See also Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002) ("[T]he miscalculation of the limitations period by ... counsel and his negligence in general do not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant equitable tolling.”); Kreutzer v. Bowersox, 231 F.3d 460, 463 (8th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 863 , 122 S.Ct. 145 , 151 L.Ed.2d 97 (2001) (stating that "counsel's confusion about the applicable statute of limitations does not warrant equitable tolling”); United States v. Saro, 252 F.3d 449, 455…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Intratec Resource Co.
v.
El Paso Corp.
v.
El Paso Corp.
01-1308.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 13, 2002.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1)
INTRATEC RESOURCE CO.
v.
EL PASO CORP. ET AL.
No. 01-1308.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 13, 2002.
1
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 275 F. 3d 43.