Legal Opinion
Fisher v. Raemisch
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided August 5, 2014No. 13-1144PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BACHARACH, Circuit Judge.
This appeal involves timeliness. Habeas petitions are subject to a one-year limitations period. See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2012). But the limitations period is tolled during the pendency of an application for post-conviction relief. Id. § 2244(d)(2). Mr. Michael Fisher filed a post-conviction application, but the state district court waited over eight years to rule. The Respondents argue that by failing to ask for an expeditious ruling, Mr. Fisher abandoned the post-conviction proceedings.
In light of this…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Artuz v. BennettSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Carey v. SaffoldSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Gibson v. KlingerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000
- Evans v. ChavisSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- William J. Barnett, Also Known as William Barnett v. Tim Lemaster, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary Attorney General for the State of New MexicoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Barnes v. HaddonDistrict Court, D. Utah · 2022
- Brown v. PowellDistrict Court, D. Utah · 2024
- Chrisman v. State of UtahDistrict Court, D. Utah · 2019
- Dominguez v. RiosDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 2023
- Eggleston v. State of UtahDistrict Court, D. Utah · 2024
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.