Davis v. Purkett

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the petitioner’s probation revocation was “final” for purposes of § 2244(d)(1)(A) on the day it was entered because direct review was unavailable
• concluding that the petitioner's probation revocation was \final\ for purposes of § 2244(d)(I)(A) on the day the trial court entered it, in the sense that direct review was unavailable
• concluding that the petitioner’s probation revocation was “final” for purposes of § 2244(d)(1)(A) on the day the trial court entered it, in the sense that direct review was unavailable
• concluding that the petitioner's probation revocation was \final\ for purposes of § 2244(d)(1)(A) on the day the trial court entered it, in the sense that direct review was unavailable
• concluding that the petitioner’s probation revocation was “final” for purposes of § 2244(d)(1)(A) on the day the trial court entered it, in the sense that direct review was unavailable
• concluding that the petitioner’s probation revocation was “final” for purposes of § 2244(d)(1)(A) on the day the trial court entered it, in the sense that direct review was unavailable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).