Citation network
Lawrence Vs. Florida
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 20, 2007
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, 2006 Lawrence V. FloridaSearch
-
filing a certiorari petition. Yet state prisoners need not petition for certiorari to exhaust state remedies. Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
has long included review by this Court, Clay v. UnitedSearch
-
s diligence. See Pace v. DiGuglielmoSearch
-
joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Lawrence v. FloridaSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Lawrence V. FloridaSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 05-8820 Gary Lawrence, Petitioner V. FloridaSearch
-
court denied relief, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, issuing its mandate on November 18, 2002. See Lawrence v. StateSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
tolled by the pendency of a petition for certiorari seeking review of a state postconviction proceeding. See Coates v. ByrdSearch
-
mean that the statute of limitations is tolled only while state courts review the application. As we stated in Carey v. SaffoldSearch
-
Duncan v. WalkerSearch
-
added). Yet we have said that state prisoners need not petition for certiorari to exhaust state remedies. Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
County Court of Ulster Cty. v. AllenSearch
-
particularly in the postconviction context where prisoners have no constitutional right to counsel. E.g., Coleman v. ThompsonSearch
-
s disposition of an application for postconviction relief. See Carey v. SaffoldSearch
-
the time to file a petition for certiorari expires or, if a petition is filed, when it is decided or denied. See Clay v. UnitedSearch
-
Sullivan v. BoerckelSearch
-
cf. Rhines v. WeberSearch
-
persons in state custody for federal habeas review). And though we can entertain original habeas petitions, see Felker v. TurpinSearch
-
review of the denial of state postconviction relief. Footnote 3 The majority inappropriately relies on Carey v. SaffoldSearch
-
time for seeking certiorari from this Court was excluded from the tolling period. Footnote 4 Notably, in Clay v. UnitedSearch
-
a) (establishing a 180-day period of limitation). Footnote 6 See, e.g. , Sanchez-Llamas v. OregonSearch
-
were generally the more appropriate avenue for our consideration of federal constitutional claims. See Kyles v. WhitleySearch
-
Court, Clay v. UnitedSearch
-
See Pace v. DiGuglielmoSearch
-
Gary Lawrence, Petitioner V. FloridaSearch
-
See Lawrence v. StateSearch
-
See Coates v. ByrdSearch
-
E.g., Coleman v. ThompsonSearch
-
See Carey v. SaffoldSearch
-
See Clay v. UnitedSearch
-
Clay v. UnitedSearch
-
Sanchez-Llamas v. OregonSearch
-
See Kyles v. WhitleySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial