Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Walker Vs. Martin

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 23, 2011

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

28 entries 6 linked 22 unlinked
Show
  1. Coleman Vs. Thompson US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1991
  2. Beard Vs. Kindler US Supreme Court · Dec 07, 2009
  3. Davis Vs. Wechsler US Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1923
  4. Rhines Vs. Weber US Supreme Court · Mar 30, 2005
  5. Lee Vs. Kemna US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 2002
  6. Thornburgh Vs. Abbott US Supreme Court · May 15, 1989
  7. Syllabus October Term, 2010 Walker V. Martin
    Search
  8. to judge whether a habeas petition is timely filed, Carey v. Saffold
    Search
  9. see Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  10. Johnson v. United
    Search
  11. requirements to ensure that they do not operate to discriminate against claims of federal rights. See, e.g., Brown v. Western
    Search
  12. Fed. Appx. 793, reversed. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Walker v. Martin
    Search
  13. Opinion of the Court Walker V. Martin
    Search
  14. Supreme Court of the United States No. 09-996 James Walker, Warden, Et Al., Petitioners V. Charles
    Search
  15. see Harrington v. Richter
    Search
  16. and certainty necessary to constitute an adequate state bar. 357 Fed. Appx. 793, 794 (2009) (relying on Townsend v. Knowles
    Search
  17. F. 3d 1200 (CA9 2009)). In a recent decision, Beard v. Kindler
    Search
  18. People v. Romero
    Search
  19. s time bar. Martin v. Hubbard
    Search
  20. See also Bennett v. Mueller
    Search
  21. s alleged violation of his constitutional rights. See Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  22. slip op., at 1) (quoting Coleman v. Thompson
    Search
  23. the grounds on which he based the petition. Ibid. In Rhines v. Weber
    Search
  24. assessment and summarily dismiss a petition on the merits, if that is the easier path. See, e.g. , Strickland v. Washington
    Search
  25. cf. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon
    Search
  26. applied because outcomes under the rule vary from case to case. See 357 Fed. Appx., at 794. For example, in People v. Fairbanks
    Search
  27. and to avoid the harsh results that sometimes attend consistent application of an unyielding rule. See Prihoda v. McCaughtry
    Search
  28. procedural requirements to ensure that they do not operate to discriminate against claims of federal rights. See Brown v. Western
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial