Exhaustion Of State Remedies

3,028 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Heath v. Jones
  863 F.2d 815· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-17 ·cited 362×
  The denial of the appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed because the magistrate's report and recommendation, adopted by the district court, correctly found that state remedies were exhausted and the claims lacked merit.
• Gennero Galtieri v. Louie L. Wainwright
  582 F.2d 348· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-23 ·cited 251×
  The court holds that while generally mixed habeas petitions should be dismissed, district judges may address exhausted grounds when fundamental rights are at stake, and such decisions will be reviewed on the merits.
• Washington v. Strickland
  693 F.2d 1243· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-23 ·cited 191×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the outcome-determinative test for prejudice in a habeas corpus claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. It established a new standard for prejudice, requiring proof that the omitted mitigating evidence would have "subst
• Basista v. Weir
  340 F.2d 74· 3d Cir.· 1965-01-08 ·cited 178×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict for the defendant and in its jury instructions, and that a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act was properly stated and potentially proven.
• Snowden v. Singletary
  135 F.3d 732· 11th Cir.· 1998-02-18 ·cited 167×
  Harold Snowden was convicted of five counts of child abuse and sentenced to two consecutive life terms. On federal habeas review, the Eleventh Circuit held that expert testimony vouching for the credibility of child witnesses violated Snowden's due process right to a fair trial w
• The State OF Tex. & Dr. George J. Beto v. Payton
  390 F.2d 261· 5th Cir.· 1968-02-12 ·cited 160×
  The Court held that the District Court erred in granting habeas corpus solely on the basis of a failure to warn the petitioner of his right to remain silent, as Escobedo's holding was limited to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and did not apply retroactively to trials before
• Fitzgerald v. Estelle
  505 F.2d 1334· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-30 ·cited 153×
• Wright v. McMANN
  387 F.2d 519· 2d Cir.· 1967-12-19 ·cited 150×
  Federal courts must hear state prisoners' claims of cruel and unusual punishment if the state provides no adequate forum for injunctive relief.
• Thompson v. Louie L. Wainwright
  787 F.2d 1447· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-10 ·cited 134×
  The court held that while counsel's failure to investigate Thompson's background was deficient, it did not prejudice Thompson under the Strickland standard because the overwhelming aggravating circumstances would have led to the same death sentence. The court also found no merit
• Daye v. Attorney Gen. OF the State OF NEW York & Eugene Le Fevre
  696 F.2d 186· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-09 ·cited 130×
  The court held that a federal court should not grant habeas corpus relief if state remedies have not been exhausted, meaning the federal constitutional claim must have been presented to the state courts.
• Limmie West, III v. State OF La.
  478 F.2d 1026· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-01 ·cited 113×
• Jones v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  722 F.2d 159· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-23 ·cited 110×
  The court held that a prisoner with a fifth-grade education, represented by counsel in a prior habeas corpus proceeding, did not abuse the writ by failing to raise new grounds, as the evidence showed his attorney's representation was minimal and the prisoner did not intentionally
• Claudine Hall v. Garson
  430 F.2d 430· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-22 ·cited 110×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of federal jurisdiction and that a claim was stated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but affirmed the refusal to convene a three-judge court.
• Guerro v. Mulhearn
  498 F.2d 1249· 1st Cir.· 1974-06-24 ·cited 109×
  A federal court must stay its hand in a section 1983 damage action if disposition would involve ruling on the legality of a state conviction during pending state proceedings, but not every related action requires exhaustion.
• Houston v. Estelle
  569 F.2d 372· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-13 ·cited 108×
  The court held that prosecutorial arguments implying the defendant sold heroin, when he was only convicted of possession, were so inflammatory and prejudicial as to violate due process, even with curative instructions.
• Fulford v. Klein
  529 F.2d 377· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-25 ·cited 108×
• Peters v. Rutledge
  397 F.2d 731· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-06 ·cited 106×
  The court held that while the arrest and seizure were constitutional, other claims raised by the appellant must first be presented to the Georgia state courts under their new habeas corpus act before federal review.
• Toussaint v. McCARTHY
  801 F.2d 1080· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the district court assumed too much control over prison affairs, requiring modification of the permanent injunction to ensure it is no broader than necessary to remedy constitutional violations.
• Grundler v. State OF N.C.
  283 F.2d 798· 4th Cir.· 1960-11-11 ·cited 104×
  The court held that the District Court did not err in denying a habeas corpus petition without a hearing, as the state court proceedings demonstrated no deprivation of federal constitutional rights.
• Labat v. Bennett
  365 F.2d 698· 5th Cir.· 1966-08-15 ·cited 102×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority opinion failed to address the central issue of deliberate and intentional exclusion of Negroes from petit jury panels, instead focusing on unrelated matters. The dissent contends that the evidence, including a stipulation and testimon
• Westbrook v. Zant
  704 F.2d 1487· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-16 ·cited 98×
  The court held that the trial court's denial of a request for a court-appointed psychologist or psychiatrist to evaluate the impact of long-term incarceration on a capital defendant's mental state was not an abuse of discretion, as the defendant could have presented evidence thro
• Louie L. Wainwright v. Simpson
  360 F.2d 307· 5th Cir.· 1966-04-11 ·cited 98×
  The court affirmed the judgment but clarified that the exhaustion principle in habeas corpus is a matter of comity, not jurisdiction, and requires exhaustion of state remedies before federal intervention.
• Johnson v. State
  32 F.4th 1092· 11th Cir.· 2022-04-28 ·cited 94×
  The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the denial of postconviction relief, holding that a claim regarding the lack of written reasons for a guideline departure was barred by failure to raise it on direct appeal, but that a claim that the split sentence exceeded the guid
• United States ex rel. Darcy v. Handy
  203 F.2d 407· 3d Cir.· 1953-03-24 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the relator must be afforded an opportunity to prove allegations of hysteria and prejudice at his trial, as the undisputed facts did not countervail these claims. The court also found that the lower court erred in dismissing the petition without allowing the r
• Thompson v. Louie L. Wainwright
  714 F.2d 1495· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-06 ·cited 93×
  A federal court may grant a continuance of a habeas petition to allow a petitioner to exhaust unraised claims in state court, and a state attorney general can waive the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus.
• United States ex rel. Nathaniel Spurlark v. Wolff
  699 F.2d 354· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-28 ·cited 93×
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated in this concurring and dissenting opinion, but it addresses the application of waiver rules to habeas corpus claims.
• Fulford v. Klein
  550 F.2d 342· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-08 ·cited 90×
• United States ex rel. Jacob Wissenfeld v. Wilkins
  281 F.2d 707· 2d Cir.· 1960-08-03 ·cited 89×
  The court held that while the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, the hearing afforded to the relator was inadequate, requiring reversal and remand for a further hearing.
• Boykins v. Louie L. Wainwright
  737 F.2d 1539· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 87×
  The court held that while the state trial court erred in excluding Dr. Rodriguez's testimony regarding the defendant's prior mental health issues, this error was not of constitutional magnitude and did not violate fundamental fairness.
• Preston v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen., State of Fla.
  785 F.3d 449· 11th Cir.· 2015-04-29 ·cited 86×
  Robert Preston was convicted of premeditated murder for the 1978 killing of Earline Walker and sentenced to death. Nearly thirty years later, Preston filed a federal habeas petition raising twenty-eight claims, including a claim that the state failed to present sufficient evidenc
• Richardson v. Les Fleming
  651 F.2d 366· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-22 ·cited 83×
  A retained attorney can be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if they conspire with state officials, even if the officials are immune, and exhaustion of state remedies is required if the § 1983 claim challenges the validity of confinement.
• Paprskar v. Estelle
  612 F.2d 1003· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-03 ·cited 82×
  The district court erred in dismissing petitioner's second federal habeas corpus petition as a successive petition constituting an 'abuse of the writ'.
• Mr. and Mrs. Ardmore Canton v. Spokane Sch. Dist. #81
  498 F.2d 840· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-13 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action based on abstention and failure to exhaust state remedies, as the federal claims were not adequately addressed by state law or administrative processes.
• Granville v. Hunt
  411 F.2d 9· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-19 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the prisoner's complaint failed to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and that habeas corpus relief was unavailable.
• Martinez v. Harris
  675 F.2d 51· 2d Cir.· 1982-04-01 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the conviction rested on an adequate and independent state ground, precluding federal review of the constitutional claim due to a procedural default. The judgment of the district court denying habeas relief was affirmed.
• Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. City OF Simi Valley
  882 F.2d 1398· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-06 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment taking claim was not ripe because they failed to seek compensation through available state procedures, but their Fourteenth Amendment due process claim was ripe and stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Battle v. Park J. Anderson
  564 F.2d 388· 10th Cir.· 1977-10-26 ·cited 76×
  The court affirmed the district court's order requiring inmate population reductions, finding that the state failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on appeal and that the order was necessary to remedy unconstitutional conditions.
• Williams v. Ward
  556 F.2d 1143· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-26 ·cited 76×
  The court held that a prisoner's claim for access to and rebuttal of information in his institutional files, which may affect parole, is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not a habeas corpus petition, and thus does not require exhaustion of state remedies.
• United States ex rel. Thomas Johnson v. Chairman OF NEW York State Bd. OF Parole & Comm'r of N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. Servs.
  500 F.2d 925· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-13 ·cited 75×
  The dissent argues that the prior ruling in Menechino v. Oswald, which denied due process rights in parole hearings, was not superseded by Morrissey v. Brewer and should still apply to deny a statement of reasons for parole denial.
• Presnell v. Kemp
  835 F.2d 1567· 11th Cir.· 1988-01-11 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the cause and prejudice standard from Wainwright v. Sykes applies to claims barred by a state's successive petition rule, and the petitioner bears the burden of proving cause and prejudice.
• Hall v. Louie L. Wainwright
  733 F.2d 766· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-16 ·cited 74×
  The court held that a defendant may waive their right to be present at critical stages of a capital trial, and the specific circumstances of the defendant's absence during voir dire require further inquiry into knowing and voluntary waiver.
• Harvey v. State OF Miss.
  340 F.2d 263· 5th Cir.· 1965-01-12 ·cited 74×
  The Court held that the failure to advise a defendant of his right to counsel before accepting a guilty plea, even for a misdemeanor, violates due process and invalidates the conviction.
• Cleveland Colson v. Lamont Smith
  438 F.2d 1075· 5th Cir.· 1971-01-21 ·cited 72×
  A voluntary guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defects, but a plea induced by ineffective assistance of counsel is involuntary and can be challenged. Statistical evidence of racial disparity in grand jury selection can establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
• Johnson v. Am. Credit Co. OF Ga.
  581 F.2d 526· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-06 ·cited 71×
  The Georgia prejudgment attachment scheme is facially unconstitutional because it lacks the required judicial scrutiny for the issuance of attachment writs, violating the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
• Prado McGEE, Jr. v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  722 F.2d 1206· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 70×
  The state may waive the statutory requirement that a federal habeas corpus applicant exhaust state remedies, and failure to raise the non-exhaustion defense at the proper time constitutes an implicit waiver.
• Wiley v. Sowders
  647 F.2d 642· 6th Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 70×
  A criminal defendant is deprived of effective assistance of counsel when their attorney admits the client's guilt to the jury without first obtaining the client's consent to this strategy.
• Blair v. The People OF the State OF Cal.
  340 F.2d 741· 9th Cir.· 1965-01-06 ·cited 70×
  A state prisoner must exhaust state remedies for issues arising from new Supreme Court decisions before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Conover v. Honorable Frank M. Montemuro, Jr.
  477 F.2d 1073· 3d Cir.· 1972-12-20 ·cited 69×
  The court reinstated prior panel opinions, excluding portions on judicial immunity in § 1983 injunctive relief suits, and declined to rule on the issue.
• United States ex rel. Almeida v. Baldi
  195 F.2d 815· 3d Cir.· 1952-03-27 ·cited 69×
  The deliberate suppression of evidence vital to the defense in a capital case constitutes a violation of due process, vitiating the proceedings.
• THE Fla. Star v. B.J.F.
  530 So. 2d 286· Fla.· 1988-09-01 ·cited 68×
  The Florida Supreme Court answered a certified question from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding its subject-matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal involving The Florida Star's publication of a rape victim's name. The court held that it possessed jurisdiction over the district court