Skip to main content
Fifth Circuit· 4/7/2000

Smith v. Ward

Citations

  • 209 F.3d 383
  • 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 6294
  • 2000 WL 358294

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that an untimely petition for state post-conviction relief was “properly filed” because the statute’s exceptions to its timeliness requirements prevented the statute from imposing an “absolute bar to filing”
  • holding that although Louisiana court held post-conviction petition untimely filed, statutory exceptions to filing requirement rendered petition “properly filed” for purposes of § 2244(d)
  • finding because “Louisiana courts will accept a prisoner’s application for filing and review it to determine whether any of the statutory exceptions to filing are applicable . . . [the application] was ‘properly filed’” despite being time barred
  • state application for post-conviction relief, denied as time-barred pursuant to LA. CODE CRIM. P. art. 930.8, “properly filed” within meaning of § 2244(d)(2)
  • pre-Artuz decision concluding that untimely application for post-conviction relief was properly filed because Louisiana courts will accept and review a prisoner’s application to determine whether any statutory exceptions to the time bar are applicable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Politz, Jolly, Barksdale

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

33 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Smith v. Ward

9 other CourtListener records share this case 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.