Skip to main content
Sixth Circuit· 1/10/2008

In Re McDonald

Citations

  • 514 F.3d 539
  • 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 435
  • 2008 WL 89951

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining that the district court must then “engage in additional analysis in order to ascertain whether but for the constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found [the petitioner] guilty of the underlying offense”
  • declining to consider “whether [the petitioner’s] claim would be deemed beyond the one-year statute of limitations” or “whether the petitioner’s claims have been exhausted” in state court
  • “[I]nvestigating compliance with the one-year statute of limitations outlined in 28 U.S.C. 8 Appellate Case: 25-5023 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/27/2025 Page: 9 § 2244(d)—clearly a separate subsection from . . . § 2244(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Siler, Gibbons, McKeague

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.