Thomas D. Arthur v. Kim Tobias Thomas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the change in decisional law rendered in Martinez is not an “extraordinary circumstance” sufficient to invoke Rule 60(b)(6)
• holding that the Martinez rule does not apply to the one-year limitations period in § 2254 cases or any potential tolling of that period
• holding that “the Martinez rule explicitly relates to excusing a procedural default of ineffective-trial-counsel claims and does not apply to AEDPA's statute of limitations or the tolling of that period.”
• holding that “the Martinez rule explicitly relates to excusing a procedural default of ineffective-trial-counsel claims and does not apply to AEDPA’s statute of limitations or the tolling of that period.”
• holding that “the Martinez rule explicitly relates to excusing a procedural default of ineffective-trial-counsel claims and does not apply to AEDPA’s statute of limitations or the tolling of that period.”
• holding that “the Martinez rule explicitly relates to excusing a procedural default of ineffective-trial-counsel claims and does not apply to AEDPA’s statute of limitations or the tolling of that period.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).