IN RE NAGY

Citator

Cited By

• Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (U.S. 2000)
  …Y. Crim. Proc. Law §440.10(2)(a) (McKinney 1994), and a bar against raising a claim that was available on direct appeal but was not raised because of the defendant’s “unjustifiable failure,” §440.10(2)(c).1 199 F. 3d, at 123. We granted certiorari. 529 U. S. 1065 (2000). [*8] II Petitioner contends here, as he did below, that an application for state postconviction or other collateral review is not “properly filed” for purposes of § 2244(d)(2) unless it complies with all mandatory state-law procedural requi…
• Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005)
  …olve the conflict over the interpretation of “properly filed” on April 17, 2000, only eight days after the Eleventh Circuit denied petitioner a COA and well within the 90-day period in which petitioner could have sought certiorari. Artuz v. Bennett, 529 U. S. 1065. Whether or not petitioner was aware that the issue was pending before us, see post, at 544-545, n. 7 (Stevens, J., dissenting), it is indisputable that had he but filed a petition raising the statute-of-limitations argument he now advances, we woul…
• Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2001)
  …3 F. 3d 1214 (1999), adhering to its intervening decision in Kimel v. State Bd. of Regents, 139 F. 3d 1426, 1433 (CA11 1998), aff'd, 528 U. S. 62 (2000), that the ADA validly abrogates the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. We granted certiorari, 529 U. S. 1065 (2000), to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether an individual may sue a State for money damages in federal court under the ADA. I The Eleventh Amendment provides: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be…