May v. Workman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court properly determined that AEDPA limitations period was not tolled during pendency of various motions for transcripts and petitions for writs of mandamus relating to those motions
• concluding that the district court “correctly determined that the limitations period should not be tolled during the pendency of [the petitioner’s] various motions for transcripts and petitions for writs of mandamus relating to those motions”
• noting that AEDPA’s one-year period “is tolled or suspended during the pendency of a state application for post-conviction relief properly filed during the limitations period” (emphasis added)
• noting that AEDPA’s one-year period “is tolled or suspended during the pendency of a state application for post-conviction relief properly filed during the limitations period” (emphasis added)
• noting that AEDPA’s one-year period “is tolled or suspended during the pendency of a state application for post-conviction relief properly filed during the limitations period” (emphasis added) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)
• noting that AEDPA’s one-year period “is tolled or suspended during the pendency of a state application for post-conviction relief properly filed during the limitations period” (emphasis added) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).