William H. Payton v. Anthony Brigano

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 one-year statute of limitations may be tolled “for that amount of time in which ‘a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending’”
• holding that the one-year statute of limitations may be tolled “for that amount of time in which ‘a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending’”
• holding that the one-year statute of limitations may be tolled “for that amount of time in which ‘a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending.’”
• holding that the one-year statute of limitations may be tolled “for that amount of time in which ‘a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending.’”
• the tolling provision of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) does not “revive” the limitations period; it can only serve to pause a clock that has not yet fully run

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).