Bills v. Clark

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that tolling may be justified where 20 mental impairment “interferes with the ability to understand the need for assistance, the ability to 21 secure it, or the ability to cooperate with or monitor assistance the petitioner does secure.”
• formulating a 8 two part test for eligibility for equitable tolling due to mental impairment
• establishing standard for deciding equitable tolling claims predicated on mental incompetence
• stating that mental impairment is an extraordinary circumstance
• “[T]he ‘competency’ standard does not exist in a vacuum—it varies in relation to the task the defendant is expected to perform. A decision to stand trial or plead guilty is different from undertaking a self-defense at trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).