Citation network
Gonzalez Vs. Crosby
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 23, 2005
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2004 Gonzalez V. CrosbySearch
-
s, the petition is ultimately dismissed as procedurally barred. Artuz v. BennettSearch
-
s statute of limitations, fits this description. Nothing in Calderon v. ThompsonSearch
-
J., filed a concurring opinion. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, J., joined. Gonzalez v. CrosbySearch
-
Opinion of the Court Gonzalez V. CrosbySearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-6432 Aurelio O. Gonzalez, Petitioner V. JamesSearch
-
s statute of limitations took effect. Wilcox v. FloridaSearch
-
and petitioner did not file for rehearing or review of that decision. On November 7, 2000, we held in Artuz v. BennettSearch
-
See Liljeberg v. HealthSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Klapprott v. UnitedSearch
-
for a writ of habeas corpus. Calderon v. ThompsonSearch
-
in the other habeas statutes in chapter 153 of title 28. See, e.g., Woodford v. GarceauSearch
-
s habeas petition had omitted a claim of constitutional error, and seek leave to present that claim. Cf. Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 60(b)(2), in support of a claim previously denied. E.g., Rodwell v. PepeSearch
-
Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 60(b)(6), from the previous denial of a claim. E.g., Dunlap v. LitscherSearch
-
Like the Court of Appeals, respondent relies heavily on our decision in Calderon v. ThompsonSearch
-
of jurisdiction altogether deprives a federal court of the power to adjudicate the rights of the parties. Steel Co. v. CitizensSearch
-
petitioner, that seeks to use Rule 60(b), to reopen a habeas judgment granting the writ. See, e.g., Ritter v. SmithSearch
-
justifying the reopening of a final judgment. Ackermann v. UnitedSearch
-
habeas context. Third, Rule 60(b) proceedings are subject to only limited and deferential appellate review. Browder v. DirectorSearch
-
constructions of federal statutes customarily apply to all cases then pending on direct review, see, e.g., Harper v. VirginiaSearch
-
d)(2), then Pace v. DiGuglielmoSearch
-
Inc. v. LockheedSearch
-
bar. Footnote 5 Fraud on the federal habeas court is one example of such a defect. See generally Rodriguez v. MitchellSearch
-
a second chance to have the merits determined favorably. Footnote 6 Petitioner notes that we held in Slack v. McDanielSearch
-
b). But see, e.g., Murray v. GreinerSearch
-
s Rule 60(b) motion is not subject to the limitations applicable to habeas petitions. Footnote 7 See Reid v. AngeloneSearch
-
cf. Langford v. DaySearch
-
Reid, supra, at 368 (same). But see Dunn v. CockrellSearch
-
s denial of statutory tolling was therefore correct under Pace v. DiGuglielmoSearch
-
consequences for cases that have already reached final judgment, particularly in the criminal context. See Bousley v. UnitedSearch
-
cf. Fiore v. WhiteSearch
-
denied petitioner a COA and well within the 90-day period in which petitioner could have sought certiorari. Artuz v. BennettSearch
-
him the reconsideration in light of Artuz that he later sought in his Rule 60(b) motion. See, e.g. , Brown v. MooreSearch
-
s judgment denying a COA, and remanding for reconsideration in light of Artuz ). Gonzalez v. CrosbySearch
-
s opinion. Gonzalez v. CrosbySearch
-
Stevens, J., Dissenting Gonzalez V. CrosbySearch
-
Rahman v. BellSearch
-
Plaut v. SpendthriftSearch
-
Ackermann v. UnitedSearch
-
d). After that judgment became final, however, we decided Artuz v. BennettSearch
-
see also Slack v. McDanielSearch
-
Liljeberg v. HealthSearch
-
Services Acquisition Corp ., 486 U. S. 847 , 864 (1988) (quoting Klapprott v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial