In re Interest of Draygon W.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that time limit 5 in subdivision 4(c) is nonjurisdictional but declining to decide whether it is subject to equitable tolling
• suggesting that the 2-yeár limitations period in the postconviction statute could theoretically be tolled if the petitioner showed that he had diligently pursued his claim and was prevented from filing on time by extraordinary circumstances
• finding that “[t]he limited application of tolling in our case law is not dissimilar to the federal courts’ application of equitable tolling in the context of the habeas corpus statute, the federal equivalent of our postconviction statute”
• refusing to equitably toll the statute of limitations set forth in Minn. Stat. § 590.01 (2010)
• rejecting the argument that “an interests-of-justice claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel can arise only once a petitioner subjectively knows that his counsel was ineffective” (emphasis omitted)
• collecting cases from states that recognize equitable tolling in post-conviction actions and concluding that “[w]e have not found any state that applies a test less stringent than the federal Holland test in the context of postconviction relief”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).