Legal Opinion
Deerwester v. Carter
District Court, C.D. Illinois
Decided May 20, 1998No. 97-1428PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
MIHM, Chief Judge.
The matter currently before the before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Alter Judgment [# 13], which is, in substance, a Motion for Reconsideration, and the Court will treat it as such. The Motion to Alter Judgment [# 13] is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to REOPEN the case. Respondent has 21 days from the date of this Order to address the merits of the Petition.
Facts
On March 11, 1998, this Court dismissed Deerwester’s Petition of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, finding that the Petition was time barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, which provides for a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Houston v. LackSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Caisse Nationale De Credit Agricole, a French Banking Corporation v. Cbi Industries, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
- Steven R. Lovasz v. Scig Supt. Donald T. VaughnCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
- United States v. OwenUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1955
3Cited by4 opinions
- Dale Swartz v. Meyers, Superintendent Pennsylvania Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Kaw Nation of Oklahoma v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Diaz v. O'MalleyDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2025
- Swartz v. MeyersCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000