Dunker v. Bissonnette

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the same where the motion for a new trial was filed seven months after the April 1997 expiration date and noting that allowing the alternative would defeat the purpose of the one-year grace period entirely
• observing that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) tolling provision “does not give petitioner the ability to revive an expired grace period by the simple expedient of filing a fifth motion for a new trial” and that “[s]uch an ability would eviscerate the one year grace period”
• stating in dicta CPCS attorney not state actor for purposes of section 1983 claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).