Cases pin-citing Mayle · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Mayle

Cases pin-citing Mayle

Mayle v. Felix  ·  2005  ·  56 pinpoint citations from 28 cases, 21 distinct passages.

(HC) White v. Arviza  ·  2025-07-08  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 545 U.S. at 644
“Habeas Corpus Rule 2(c) is more demanding”
(HC) Young v. Tate  ·  2025-06-16  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 545 U.S. at 644
“Habeas Corpus Rule 2(c) is more demanding”
Cruz-Ramos v. United States  ·  2025-06-05  ·  D. Puerto Rico  ·  pin 545 U.S. at 644
“[Rule 15] governs amendments to habeas petitions in § 2255 proceedings.”
(HC)Howard v. Trate  ·  2025-05-30  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 545 U.S. at 644
“Habeas Corpus Rule 2(c) is more demanding”
Black v. United States  ·  2024-01-04  ·  W.D. North Carolina  ·  pin 545 U.S. at 644
“As a general rule, an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect”
Santiago-Colon v. United States  ·  2023-09-28  ·  D. Puerto Rico  ·  pin 545 U.S. at 644
“[Rule 15] governs amendments to habeas petitions in § 2255 proceedings.”
(HC) Thompson v. United States  ·  2023-04-10  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 545 U.S. at 644
“Habeas Corpus Rule 2(c) is more demanding”
(HC) Clarke v. Trate  ·  2022-12-14  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 545 U.S. at 644
“Habeas Corpus Rule 2(c) is more demanding”
(HC) Quair v. Skiles  ·  2022-11-18  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 545 U.S. at 644
“Habeas Corpus Rule 2(c) is more demanding”
Fennell v. McCarthy  ·  2021-02-08  ·  S.D. New York  ·  pin 545 U.S. at 644
“So long as the original and amended petitions state claims that are tied to a common core of operative facts, relation back will be in order.”
Eubanks v. Espinoza  ·  2019-10-03  ·  S.D. California  ·  pin 545 U.S. at 644
“Amendments made after the statute of limitations has run relate back to the 18 of the original pleading if the original and amended pleadings ‘ar(i)se out of the 19 ||conduct, transaction, or occurrence.””
United States v. Roe  ·  2019-01-29  ·  Tenth Circuit  ·  pin 125 S. Ct. at 2562
"Each separate congeries *1298 of facts supporting the grounds for relief, the Rule suggests, would delineate an 'occurrence.' "
Pena v. United States  ·  2017-06-30  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 125 L. Ed. 2d at 582
“It is well-settled that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and specifically Rule 15 governing amendments of pleadings, apply to habeas petitions.”
Maurice Lewis v. P. Vasquez  ·  2016-09-16  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 125 L. Ed. 2d at 582
“If claims asserted after the one-year period could be revived simply because they relate to the same trial, conviction, or sentence as a timely filed claim, AEDPA’s limitation period would have slim significance.”
Dabrieo v. Massachusetts Parole Board  ·  2015-03-26  ·  D. Massachusetts  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 125 L. Ed. 2d at 582
“relation back depends on the existence of a common ‘core of operative facts’ uniting the original and newly asserted claims.”
Gerald DeCoteau v. Alex Schweitzer  ·  2014-12-23  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 125 L. Ed. 2d at 582
“Congress enacted AEDPA to advance the finality of criminal convictions.”
Garcia v. Director, TDCJ-CID  ·  2014-11-10  ·  E.D. Texas  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 125 L. Ed. 2d at 582
“So long as the original and amended petitions state claims that are tied back to a common core of operative facts, relation back will be in order.”
Deidre Clark v. United States  ·  2014-09-04  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 125 L. Ed. 2d at 582
“An amended habeas petition, we hold, does not relate back (and thereby escape AEDPA’s one-year time limit) when it asserts a new ground for relief supported by facts that differ in both time and type from those the original pleading set forth.”
Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.  ·  2014-08-06  ·  Supreme Court of Minnesota  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 125 L. Ed. 2d at 582
“[A] complaint need only provide fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
United States v. Strandlof  ·  2012-01-27  ·  Tenth Circuit  ·  pin 545 U.S. at 644
“[S]peech constitut[ing] a false factual assertion [] is not protected by the First Amendment.”
United States v. Strandlof  ·  2012-01-27  ·  Tenth Circuit  ·  4 pin-cites  ·  pin 125 L. Ed. 2d at 582
“The first amendment has not been interpreted to preclude liability for false statements.”
Casseday v. United States  ·  2010-07-13  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 125 L. Ed. 2d at 582
“An amended habeas petition ... does not relate back ... when it asserts a new ground for relief supported by facts that differ in both time and type from those the original pleading set forth.”
Harris v. Koenig  ·  2009-12-14  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 125 L. Ed. 2d at 582
“[A]ttempts to introduce a new legal theory based on facts different from those underlying the timely claims does not relate back”
Friedman v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.  ·  2008-09-22  ·  C.D. California  ·  pin 545 U.S. at 644
“relation back depends on the existence of a common core of operative facts uniting the original and newly asserted claims”
Evans v. United States  ·  2008-07-18  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 125 L. Ed. 2d at 582
“An amended habeas petition ... does not relate back (and thereby escape AEDPA’s one-year time limit) when it asserts a new ground for relief supported by facts that differ in both time and type from those the original pleading set forth.”
Mosley v. Dinwiddie  ·  2008-03-04  ·  Tenth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 125 L. Ed. 2d at 582
“[Relation back depends on the existence of a common ‘core of operative facts’ uniting the original and newly asserted claims.”
Culver v. Director of Corrections  ·  2006-09-16  ·  C.D. California  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 125 L. Ed. 2d at 582
“If claims asserted after the one-year period could be revived simply because they relate to the same trial, conviction, or sentence as a timely filed claim, AEDPA’s limitation period would have slim significance”
Winters v. Brothers (In Re Brothers)  ·  2006-06-05  ·  S.D. Florida  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 125 L. Ed. 2d at 582
“Relation back depends on the existence of a ‘common core of operative facts’ uniting the original and newly asserted claims.”
Page 1 of 2   Next →