Collins v. Ercole

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that § 2244(d)(2) tolls the limitations period only for those applications that seek review of part or all of the judgment (i.e., conviction and sentence) challenged in the habeas petition
• noting that applications under CPL § 440.10 toll the AEDPA limitations period
• “Interpreting § 2244(d)(2), by its plain language, to toll the limitations period only for those applications that seek review of part or all of the pertinent judgment tracks the statutory structure of the AEDPA statute of limitations.”
• The tolling provision in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) might possibly apply to an Article 78 proceeding that “seek[s] review of part or all of the pertinent judgment,” but does not apply to one that does “not call the pertinent judgment into question.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).