Citation network
Day Vs. Mcdonough
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 25, 2006
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, 2005 Day V. McdonoughSearch
-
is not jurisdictional, therefore courts are under no obligation to raise the matter sU. S.onte . Cf. Kontrick v. RyanSearch
-
to habeas petitions, notably exhaustion of state remedies, procedural default, and nonretroactivity. In Granberry v. GreerSearch
-
s failure to interpose the exhaustion defense at the district-court level. Similarly, in Caspari v. BohlenSearch
-
the nonretroactivity rule announced in Teague v. LaneSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
s math, cf. Pliler v. FordSearch
-
which Breyer, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Breyer, JJ., joined. Day v. McDonoughSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Day V. McdonoughSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-1324 Patrick Day, Petitioner V. JamesSearch
-
might have sought certiorari review in this Court challenging state-court denial of postconviction relief. Coates v. ByrdSearch
-
Day v. CrosbySearch
-
denying relief was affirmed on appeal, and the appellate court issued its mandate on December 3, 2002. See Nyland v. MooreSearch
-
App. 37. In a decision rendered two years earlier, Jackson v. SecretarySearch
-
We granted certiorari sub nom. Day v. CrosbySearch
-
year limitation in its answer to the petition or its erroneous concession of the timeliness issue. Compare, e.g., Long v. WilsonSearch
-
case below), with Scott v. CollinsSearch
-
CA6 2002), and Nardi v. StewartSearch
-
hence courts are under no obligation to raise the time bar sU. S.onte . See, e.g. , Acosta v. ArtuzSearch
-
Hill v. BraxtonSearch
-
Davis v. JohnsonSearch
-
cf. Kontrick v. RyanSearch
-
state prisoners, before invoking federal habeas jurisdiction, to pursue remedies available in state court, Granberry v. GreerSearch
-
Later, in Caspari v. BohlenSearch
-
See also Schiro v. FarleySearch
-
the argument). While the issue remains open in this Court, see Trest v. CainSearch
-
court, and the consequent adequacy and independence of state-law grounds for the state-court judgment. See Brewer v. MarshallSearch
-
Rosario v. UnitedSearch
-
Sweger v. ChesneySearch
-
Yeatts v. AngeloneSearch
-
Magouirk v. PhillipsSearch
-
Sowell v. BradshawSearch
-
Kurzawa v. JordanSearch
-
King v. KemnaSearch
-
Vang v. NevadaSearch
-
United States v. WisemanSearch
-
Moon v. HeadSearch
-
cf. Slack v. McDanielSearch
-
quoting Rose v. LundySearch
-
McMillan v. JarvisSearch
-
Footnote 1 Until AEDPA took effect in 1996, no statute of limitations applied to habeas petitions. See Mayle v. FelixSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial