David v. Hall

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that AEDPA §2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) is an example of Congress providing extra protection for claims of actual innocence
• noting that Congress did adopt a form of “actual innocence” test with regard to the statutory provisions governing the filing of second or successive petitions
• stating that it is not our place to “engraft an additional judge-made exception onto congressional language that is clear on its face”
• explaining that AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations “is not even arguably unconstitutional” as applied to petitioner who “had ample time . . . in which to bring his claim within the statutory deadline”
• expressing skepticism as to whether a habeas petitioner’s actual innocence can override the AEDPA’s limitations period
• rejecting the contention that applying AEDPA’s statute of limitations period to persons who claim “actual innocence” amounts to a suspension of the writ

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).