Bear v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• the filing of a state petition after the AEDPA limitations period expired “cannot revive [the] statute of limitations and has no tolling effect”
• the filing of a state petition after the AEDPA limitations period expired “cannot revive [the] statute of limitations and has no tolling effect”
• the filing of a state petition after the AEDPA limitations period expired “cannot revive [the] statute of limitations and has no tolling effect”
• the filing of a state petition after the AEDPA limitations period expired “cannot revive [the] statute of limitations and has no tolling effect”
• although declarant’s “written statement may be new, the factual predicate underlying the claim, i.e., that [petitioner did not] accompany[y] [co-defendant] on the burglaries, is not new”
• the filing of a state petition after the AEDPA limitations period expired “cannot revive [the] statute of limitations and has no CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. CV 20-10629 CJC (PVC

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).