Teas v. Endicott

How courts have described this case

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

• “Nothing in § 2244(d) implies that the time is reopened if the state court engages in multiple rounds of review that it calls ‘direct.’”
• “Nothing in § 2244(d) implies that the time is reopened if the state court engages in multiple rounds of review that it calls ‘direct.’”
• “Nothing in § 2244(d) implies that the time is reopened if the state court engages in multiple rounds of review that it calls ‘direct.’”
• “Nothing in § 2244(d) implies that the time is reopened if the state court engages in multiple rounds of review that it calls ‘direct.’”
• definition of “direct review” in 28 U.S.C. § 2244[d] [2006] is matter of Federal law
• where time under § 2244(d)(1)(A) has long expired before filing of state post-conviction petition, no collateral review “was pending” in state court and tolling provision under § 2244(d)(2) does not render petition timely

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).