Ninth Circuit· 8/18/1997

Ashmus v. Calderon

Citations

123 F.3d 1199
97 Daily Journal DAR 10687
97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6530
1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 21732
1997 WL 469527

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that “a state’s competency standards need not require previous experience in habeas corpus litigation” because “[m]any lawyers who could competently represent a condemned prisoner would not qualify under such a standard”
concluding that “a state’s competency standards need not require previous experience in habeas corpus litigation” because “[m]any lawyers who could competently represent a condemned prisoner would not qualify under such a standard”
“California may not take advantage of the six-month limitations period when it takes years to appoint counsel.”
“California may not take advantage of the six-month limitations period when it takes years to appoint counsel.”
state does not qualify under Chapter 154 with non-binding competency standards

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Beezer, Gillmor, Thompson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.