Lennon v. Securities & Exchange Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting that RCr 11.42(10) and Section 2244(d) conflict when the one- year period expired before filing the RCr 11.42 motion, and “any lapse of time before a state application is properly filed will be counted against the one-year limitations period.” (citation omitted)
• rejecting a claim that the habeas limitation period was extended by the three-year period under the state law for filing a postconviction motion under RCr 11.42
• order rejecting a claim that the habeas limitation period was extended by the three-year period under the state law for filing a postconviction motion under RCr 11.42

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).