Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the one year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions that was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that where the government has unintentionally failed to object to the filing of a petition after the AEDPA limitations period has expired, it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to nevertheless sua sponte (on its own initiative) dismiss the petition on that basis.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the one year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions that was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that where the government has unintentionally failed to object to the filing of a petition after the AEDPA limitations period has expired, it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to nevertheless sua sponte (on its own initiative) dismiss the petition on that basis. (en)
  • Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006), is a case involving the one year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions that was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that if the government unintentionally failed to object to the filing of a petition after the AEDPA limitations period has expired, it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to dismiss sua sponte (on its own initiative) the petition on that basis. (en)
  • Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006), is a US Supreme Court case involving the one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions that was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that if the government unintentionally failed to object to the filing of a petition after the AEDPA limitations period has expired, it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to dismiss sua sponte (on its own initiative) the petition on that basis. (en)
dbo:wikiPageEditLink
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageExtracted
  • 2019-06-09 16:31:11Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-03-19 19:37:56Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-02-26 04:18:02Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-02-26 04:21:03Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-02-26 04:22:12Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-02-26 04:22:36Z (xsd:date)
dbo:wikiPageHistoryLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 5095135 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 18421 (xsd:integer)
  • 18424 (xsd:integer)
  • 18495 (xsd:integer)
  • 18506 (xsd:integer)
  • 18602 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageModified
  • 2019-05-07 05:13:18Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-03-19 19:37:52Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-02-26 04:17:55Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-02-26 04:21:00Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-02-26 04:22:06Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-02-26 04:22:30Z (xsd:date)
dbo:wikiPageOutDegree
  • 78 (xsd:integer)
  • 80 (xsd:integer)
  • 81 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 895896798 (xsd:integer)
  • 946375377 (xsd:integer)
  • 1008996086 (xsd:integer)
  • 1008996570 (xsd:integer)
  • 1008996728 (xsd:integer)
  • 1008996791 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionLink
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dct:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the one year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions that was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that where the government has unintentionally failed to object to the filing of a petition after the AEDPA limitations period has expired, it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to nevertheless sua sponte (on its own initiative) dismiss the petition on that basis. (en)
  • Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006), is a case involving the one year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions that was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that if the government unintentionally failed to object to the filing of a petition after the AEDPA limitations period has expired, it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to dismiss sua sponte (on its own initiative) the petition on that basis. (en)
  • Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006), is a US Supreme Court case involving the one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions that was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that if the government unintentionally failed to object to the filing of a petition after the AEDPA limitations period has expired, it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to dismiss sua sponte (on its own initiative) the petition on that basis. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Day v. McDonough (en)
owl:sameAs
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • Patrick A. Day v. James R. McDonough, Interim Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (en)
  • (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is foaf:primaryTopic of