Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Montgomery v. Hopper
  488 F.2d 877· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the petitioner did not knowingly and understandingly bypass state remedies, thus federal habeas review is not precluded.
• United States ex rel. Alexander Little v. Twomey
  477 F.2d 767· 7th Cir.· 1973-04-19 ·cited 22×
  Defense counsel's failure to properly present an insanity defense, even if the psychiatrist's testimony was improperly excluded, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel because the defense lacked substance.
• Taylor v. The State OF Ariz.
  471 F.2d 848· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the photograph was lawfully seized incident to a lawful arrest based on probable cause, and that the 'mere evidence' rule, as rejected by Warden v. Hayden, did not require vacating the conviction.
• Johnson v. Louie L. Wainwright
  453 F.2d 385· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-28 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies regarding the claim of denial of a right to appeal.
• Tannehill v. Cletus J. Fitzharris
  451 F.2d 1322· 9th Cir.· 1971-11-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition was inadequate because it relied on state appellate opinions instead of transcripts and improperly applied res judicata.
• Odsen v. Moore
  445 F.2d 806· 1st Cir.· 1971-06-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an inordinate and inexcusable delay in pursuing state appellate remedies may constitute a denial of due process, allowing federal habeas corpus relief.
• Frazier v. Roberts
  441 F.2d 1224· 8th Cir.· 1971-04-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a search warrant issued based on an affidavit supplemented by unsworn oral testimony violates the Fourth Amendment's requirement of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.
• Harris v. Lou V. Brewer
  434 F.2d 166· 8th Cir.· 1970-11-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a federal court can entertain a habeas corpus claim of illegal search and seizure, even if procedurally forfeited in state court, if the prisoner did not deliberately waive the claim.
• Woodards v. Cardwell
  430 F.2d 978· 6th Cir.· 1970-08-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that excluding jurors for general objections to the death penalty violates Witherspoon v. Illinois, and that shackling a defendant throughout a trial without sufficient justification constitutes a denial of due process and a fair trial.
• Haggard v. State OF Tenn. & Honorable Joseph D. Duncan
  421 F.2d 1384· 6th Cir.· 1970-02-10 ·cited 22×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to state courts or their officers, and habeas corpus relief requires exhaustion of state remedies.
• Lucas v. People OF the State OF Mich.
  420 F.2d 259· 6th Cir.· 1970-01-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the last sentence of Article 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution conflicts with the Fourth Amendment as applied to the states, and that requiring exhaustion of state remedies would be futile.
• Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright
  410 F.2d 144· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a federal habeas court must deny relief if it cannot unequivocally determine that a federal constitutional issue has been considered and ruled upon by state courts, requiring exhaustion of state remedies.
• Bell v. Patterson
  402 F.2d 394· 10th Cir.· 1968-10-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant's confession was voluntary and that the jury selection process, despite the exclusion of two jurors, did not violate his constitutional rights.
• United States ex rel. Cosme Rosado v. Flood
  394 F.2d 139· 2d Cir.· 1968-04-24 ·cited 22×
  A witness before a grand jury cannot impede the investigation by raising issues that could be litigated later by an indicted defendant.
• Baines v. Swenson
  384 F.2d 621· 8th Cir.· 1967-10-31 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant has not exhausted his state remedies because a revised post-conviction rule now provides an adequate avenue for relief.
• United States ex rel. Christopher Romano v. Hon. Edward M. FAY
  360 F.2d 389· 2d Cir.· 1966-04-29 ·cited 22×
  The Supreme Court decisions in Massiah and Escobedo should not be applied retroactively to void convictions that occurred before their pronouncements.
• Rivers v. Royster
  360 F.2d 592· 4th Cir.· 1966-04-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a prisoner's constitutional rights were abridged by the denial of a newspaper based on race, violating equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Coleman v. Maxwell
  351 F.2d 285· 6th Cir.· 1965-09-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies does not require futile repetitive presentations to state courts once an issue of federal constitutional violation has been presented to the highest state court.
• Jere Lane Henry v. Tinsley
  344 F.2d 109· 10th Cir.· 1965-04-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state court remedies, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, when he filed his federal habeas corpus petition.
• Edmondson v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  335 F.2d 608· 4th Cir.· 1964-08-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a state prisoner's federal habeas corpus petition may be dismissed if the prisoner has not exhausted state remedies, unless the issue has already been decided by the state's highest court on direct appeal.
• Young v. Wainwright
  326 F.2d 255· 5th Cir.· 1964-01-09 ·cited 22×
  Failure to comply with state statutes requiring prompt presentment before a magistrate and advising of rights, standing alone, does not render a confession inadmissible in state court if the confession was otherwise voluntary.
• Donnell v. Nash
  323 F.2d 850· 8th Cir.· 1963-10-22 ·cited 22×
  Federal courts should generally require state prisoners to exhaust state remedies under new standards before entertaining federal habeas corpus petitions, especially when prior state court decisions predate these new standards.
• Mrs. Grace Carrigan v. Sunland-Tujunga Tel. Co. & State of Cal.
  263 F.2d 568· 9th Cir.· 1959-01-28 ·cited 22×
  A district court judge can dismiss a case for failure to state a claim, even if it involves a request for an injunction against a state statute, without convening a three-judge court if no substantial federal question is presented.
• Morrison v. Duckworth
  898 F.2d 1298· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-06 ·cited 21×
  A petitioner cannot establish cause for procedural default based on ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel when there is no constitutional right to counsel in such proceedings.
• Tacho v. Martinez
  862 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-08 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a petitioner who procedurally defaults a claim in state court, and fails to demonstrate cause for the default, is barred from federal habeas review of that claim.
• Dunn v. Wyrick
  679 F.2d 731· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court was justified in denying the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing because the petitioner's allegations were contradicted by his sworn statements during the plea proceedings.
• Winfrey v. Maggio
  664 F.2d 550· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-28 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and an unconstitutionally disproportionate sentence lacked merit, and that a claim of conflict of interest was unexhausted.
• Atkins v. People OF the State OF Mich. (William L. Cahalan
  644 F.2d 543· 6th Cir.· 1981-03-02 ·cited 21×
  The Sixth Circuit held that while a federal court can entertain a pretrial habeas petition for a speedy trial claim to enforce the state's duty to provide a prompt trial, the district court erred in dismissing the indictment prematurely. The court also held that the arbitrary rev
• United States v. Warren
  610 F.2d 680· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-03 ·cited 21×
  A district court exceeds its jurisdiction under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 by ordering a transfer of an inmate from state to federal custody or by crediting time spent in state custody, as these are matters of comity and executive discretion.
• Thompson v. Procunier
  539 F.2d 26· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-21 ·cited 21×
  Where a state court denies a habeas corpus petition presenting a federal constitutional question without stating a reason, the federal court will assume the state court passed on the merits and resolved the issue against the petitioner.
• Williams v. McCALL
  531 F.2d 1247· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-04 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the prisoner's civil rights complaint without affording him an opportunity to prove his allegations.
• Ralls v. Manson
  503 F.2d 491· 2d Cir.· 1974-07-05 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a state prisoner's pending direct appeal to the state Supreme Court, even with delays, means he has not exhausted state remedies as required for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Scott v. Vandiver
  476 F.2d 238· 4th Cir.· 1973-03-16 ·cited 21×
  A sheriff is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the actions of temporary law enforcement officers he summons, even if those officers are county employees acting outside their normal duties. A county supervisor is not liable for such actions if the sheriff, not the supervisor, was
• Huffman v. Smith
  172 F.2d 129· 9th Cir.· 1949-01-19 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a petitioner must exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, and that the lower court erred in considering the merits without such exhaustion.
• Alleghany Corp. v. Haase
  896 F.2d 1046· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-21 ·cited 20×
  State administrative agencies cannot concede immunity from federal law; they must comply with federal law and the Constitution without waiting for a judicial order.
• Reynolds v. Ellingsworth
  843 F.2d 712· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 51 does not act as a procedural bar to claims raised for the first time in a Rule 35 proceeding when counsel did not object at trial or on appeal, and that the adequacy of a state procedural rule depends on consistent appl
• Smith v. O.L. McCOTTER
  786 F.2d 697· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-07 ·cited 20×
  A federal court reviewing a state conviction via habeas corpus is limited to federal constitutional claims, and a guilty plea waives most preceding claims, including alleged defects in the indictment or lack of personal service.
• Swanger v. Zimmerman
  750 F.2d 291· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a habeas corpus petitioner has exhausted state remedies if the claims were presented to the state courts, even if the appellate court did not discuss them due to a finding of waiver.
• Rudolph v. Blackburn
  750 F.2d 302· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-04 ·cited 20×
  A federal habeas petitioner's failure to raise an unexhausted claim in a prior petition constitutes an abuse of the writ, even if the claim was unexhausted at the time of the prior petition.
• Carrier v. Hutto
  724 F.2d 396· 4th Cir.· 1983-12-27 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge argues that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies and did not demonstrate cause and prejudice for federal habeas review.
• Nelson v. Solem
  714 F.2d 57· 8th Cir.· 1983-08-15 ·cited 20×
• Brown v. Marshall
  704 F.2d 333· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that new issues not presented to the district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding.
• Lonnie S. Sales v. Harris
  675 F.2d 532· 2d Cir.· 1982-04-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while a jury instruction impermissibly removed the issue of photo array suggestiveness from the jury, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the prosecutor's summation did not deny a fair trial.
• Barksdale v. Blackburn
  670 F.2d 22· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the dismissal of the appeal as untimely was improper because the appeal period runs from the date of entry of the judgment, not the filing date, and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief on the merits.
• Roberts v. Louie L. Wainwright
  666 F.2d 517· 11th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a pro se petition should be interpreted liberally and that the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not too conclusory to warrant further inquiry.
• Crick v. Smith
  650 F.2d 860· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-12 ·cited 20×
  The Court held that the harmless error rule can apply to due process violations concerning juvenile transfer orders, and that the 'deliberate bypass' rule, not 'cause and prejudice,' governs procedural defaults involving failure to appeal.
• Morrow v. Wyrick
  646 F.2d 1229· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the introduction of preliminary hearing testimony from an unavailable witness, who was subject to cross-examination, is constitutionally permissible under the Confrontation Clause, and that other alleged errors were matters of state law not rising to constitut
• Chancery Clerk OF Chickasaw Cnty. v. Wallace
  646 F.2d 151· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that individuals involuntarily confined in state mental institutions may bring a § 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of the commitment procedures, and that abstention was not appropriate. However, the court vacated the certification of the defendant cla
• Hart v. Estelle
  634 F.2d 987· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies because the state court did not have a fair opportunity to consider the evidence of his incompetency.
• Dodson v. Polk Cnty.
  628 F.2d 1104· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-26 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge argues that a public defender, representing an indigent defendant, does not operate under color of state law for the purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The judge also believes public defenders should have absolute immunity.