In the case of Albert Holland v. Florida, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Albert Holland, a death row inmate who had missed his deadline to file a federal habeas corpus petition due to negligence by his court-appointed attorney. The state argued that since he did not properly file within one year after his conviction became final as required by law, he was barred from filing for relief under federal law. However, Holland claimed that this rule should be relaxed because of extraordinary circumstances - specifically the gross negligence and unresponsiveness of his lawyer despite numerous pleas for assistance with filing on time. The Supreme Court agreed with him in a 7-2 decision stating that there can indeed be exceptions made when an attorney's misconduct is so severe it effectively sabotages their client's ability to apply for post-conviction relief within statutory deadlines. This ruling established precedent allowing courts discretion in applying procedural bars like statute-of-limitations rules where equity demands flexibility.

In the dissenting opinion for Albert Holland v. Florida, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow equitable tolling in federal habeas corpus cases was not supported by legal precedent or statutory text. He contended that Congress had clearly established a one-year statute of limitations for such cases and did not include any provisions for exceptions based on extraordinary circumstances. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on case law from civil litigation contexts, arguing it was inappropriate to apply these principles to criminal proceedings where different considerations were at play. Scalia also expressed concern about potential abuse of this new rule and warned it could lead to an influx of frivolous claims from prisoners seeking additional time to file their petitions.