C.Q.W., A CHILD v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

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

• “A new petition filed in a higher court 16 within 120 days of the lower court's denial will never be considered untimely due to gap delay.”
• “A new petition filed in a higher court 1 within 120 days of the lower court's denial will never be considered untimely due to gap delay.”
• in California, a petitioner may file “a new, original petition for a writ of habeas 13 corpus in [the California Supreme Court] invoking th[e] court’s original jurisdiction”
• “There are no 12 specific time limits for either filing the first [habeas] petition or filing subsequent petitions in a 13 higher court. Instead, California courts employ a reasonableness standard. The claim must 14 generally be presented without substantial delay.”
• “There are no 11 specific time limits for either filing the first [habeas] petition or filing subsequent petitions in a 12 higher court. Instead, California courts employ a reasonableness standard. The claim must 13 generally be presented without substantial delay.”
• “There are no specific time limits for 6 either filing the first [habeas] petition or filing subsequent petitions in a higher court. Instead, 7 California courts employ a reasonableness standard. The claim must generally be presented 8 without substantial delay.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).