Robert Daniel Gassler v. James Bruton, Warden

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that delays in obtaining trial transcript did not extend the limitations period in part because “possession of a transcript . . . is not a condition precedent to the filing of such proceedings.”
• explaining that equitable tolling may apply to an untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition “because the limitations period in § 2244(d)(1) is not a jurisdictional bar”
• explaining that equitable tolling may apply to an untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition “because the limitations period in § 2244(d)(1) is not a jurisdictional bar”
• explaining that equitable tolling may apply to an untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition “because the limitations period in § 2244(d)(1) is not a jurisdictional bar”
• holding transcript unnecessary to prepare habeas petition
• possession of a transcript is not a condition precedent to filing for post-conviction relief and does not qualify as an “extraordinary circumstance” beyond a petitioner’s control [to] prevent timely filing of a petition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).