Case Citator › Riddle v. Kemna

Riddle v. Kemna

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Eighth Circuit
Citation
523 F.3d 850
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
37 of 37
Citing cases (total)
37
Treatment dates
2012
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Abrogated as to when the federal habeas filing period begins after an unappealed intermediate state appeal. All 37 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

In Gonzalez v. Thaler, the Supreme Court held that the judgment becomes final when the time to seek review in the state's highest court expires, displacing Riddle v. Kemna's rule that finality waits for the intermediate court's mandate. The Eighth Circuit recognized this abrogation in King v. Norris. Riddle's separate rule excluding an unavailable 90-day certiorari period and its equitable tolling discussion are outside this treatment. The confirmed treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

37 later cases cite Riddle v. Kemna; 37 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Riddle v. Kemna?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court held that a state prisoner's judgment becomes final when time to seek review in the state's highest court expires, displacing Riddle's later mandate-date trigger.

    Gonzalez v. Thaler · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    For all other petitioners, the judgment becomes final at the “expiration of the time for seeking such review”—when the time for pursuing direct review in this Court, or in state court, expires. We thus agree with the Court of Appeals that because Gonzalez did not appeal to the State’s highest court, his judgment became final when his time for seeking review with the State’s highest court expired.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Riddle v. Kemna and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace