Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Terrovona v. Kincheloe
  852 F.2d 424· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony was constitutional, but remanded for further review of the warrantless arrest, waiver of rights, and admission of prior conviction evidence.
• Martens v. Shannon
  836 F.2d 715· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a federal habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed.
• Young v. Lynaugh
  821 F.2d 1133· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court properly entertained the habeas petition but must reconsider the substantive claims, vacating the judgment and remanding for further proceedings.
• Chaussard v. Fulcomer
  816 F.2d 925· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner fairly presented his federal claims to the state courts, satisfying the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus relief, and that his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were not violated by the use of post-hypnosis testimony without a
• Crump v. Lane
  807 F.2d 1394· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff must exhaust state remedies for his habeas corpus petition, and his § 1983 claims are also barred because they are ancillary to his claim for release and would require a determination of the legality of his confinement.
• Thigpen v. Smith
  792 F.2d 1507· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in approving a stipulation that allowed for piecemeal litigation of habeas corpus claims, violating the policies against successive petitions.
• Sampson v. Aileene Love
  782 F.2d 53· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a habeas petitioner must present new evidence to state courts if that evidence significantly alters the posture of the claim, even if the substance of the claim was previously presented.
• Mancil Wallace v. Duckworth
  778 F.2d 1215· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies because he did not present his Fourth Amendment claim to the Indiana Supreme Court in a procedurally proper manner that required the court to consider it on the merits.
• Bailey v. Faulkner
  765 F.2d 102· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights suit was barred by the statute of limitations, and affirmed the dismissal on alternative grounds of the defendant's lack of personal liability.
• Richardson v. Procunier
  762 F.2d 429· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-10 ·cited 18×
  A Texas inmate seeking federal habeas relief has not exhausted state remedies if they fail to petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review of their conviction.
• Mazanec v. N. Judson-San Pierre Sch. Corp.
  763 F.2d 845· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-31 ·cited 18×
  The court should affirm the district court's decision to abstain from hearing the case.
• Dickerson v. Walsh
  750 F.2d 150· 1st Cir.· 1984-12-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies regarding his equal protection claim, and therefore, federal jurisdiction should not be exercised.
• Irving v. Thigpen
  732 F.2d 1215· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Mississippi parole statute does not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest, thus precluding a due process claim. However, an equal protection claim based on racial discrimination requires exhaustion of state remedies.
• Gray v. Greer
  707 F.2d 965· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act does not provide a meaningful remedy for the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, thus satisfying the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus review.
• Beaty v. Patton
  700 F.2d 110· 3d Cir.· 1983-02-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a procedural default does not bar federal habeas review if the petitioner can show the default was not a "deliberate bypass" of state court remedies, and remanded for findings on this issue.
• Maurer v. Individually & AS Members OF LOS Angeles Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
  691 F.2d 434· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the civil rights action for damages without allowing the plaintiff to amend his complaint to allege tolling of the statute of limitations due to the defendant's absence from the state. The court also held that the distric
• Seymour Pincus Slotnick v. O'Lone
  683 F.2d 60· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-28 ·cited 18×
  A federal habeas corpus petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed in its entirety, requiring the petitioner to return to state court to exhaust all claims or resubmit a petition with only exhausted claims.
• Hamlin v. Warren
  664 F.2d 29· 4th Cir.· 1981-11-03 ·cited 18×
  The dissent argues that a state prisoner's claim for damages under § 1983, which does not directly attack the fact or length of confinement, should not require exhaustion of state remedies.
• Citicorp Person-To-Person Fin. Corp. v. Brazell
  658 F.2d 232· 4th Cir.· 1981-09-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to properly file a charge with the state agency before filing with the EEOC, and the subsequent expiration of the 300-day filing period, barred her Title VII claim.
• Garrison v. McCARTHY
  653 F.2d 374· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a defendant's failure to object to identification procedures at trial, absent a showing of cause and prejudice, bars federal habeas review of the claim, and that such failure, when a tactical decision by counsel, does not constitute ineffective assistance of c
• Wright v. Cuyler
  624 F.2d 455· 3d Cir.· 1980-06-30 ·cited 18×
  Denial of admission to a home furlough program is a condition of confinement, not a challenge to the duration of imprisonment, and can be pursued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without exhausting state remedies.
• Hampton v. Wyrick
  606 F.2d 834· 8th Cir.· 1979-10-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in jury selection.
• Dominick Codispoti Y-1353 v. Howard
  589 F.2d 135· 3d Cir.· 1978-12-08 ·cited 18×
  A federal court may review a habeas corpus petition when state court delay in ruling on a new trial motion is excessive and effectively denies the petitioner's right to appeal.
• Rimmer v. The Fayetteville Police Dept.
  567 F.2d 273· 4th Cir.· 1977-12-20 ·cited 18×
  The doctrine of collateral estoppel forecloses a plaintiff from relitigating issues decided in a prior state court conviction, even in a subsequent civil rights action, provided the plaintiff had access to a federal forum for adjudication of the federal claim.
• Bond v. State OF Okla.
  546 F.2d 1369· 10th Cir.· 1976-12-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's confession, while constitutional error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming independent evidence of guilt. Other claims regarding improper conviction, denial of hearings, severance, and prejudicial ev
• Grundstrom v. Darnell
  531 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-07 ·cited 18×
  A prisoner's civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 is not timely before federal courts if it challenges the validity of confinement, which must first be addressed through a habeas corpus petition. Claims against judicial officers are barred by immunity.
• Tyler v. Swenson
  527 F.2d 877· 8th Cir.· 1976-01-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his available state remedies regarding the issue of sentence reconsideration based on an invalid prior conviction.
• Bell v. W. J
  525 F.2d 656· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a state court's failure to strictly comply with a state statute in accepting a guilty plea does not raise a federal constitutional question if the plea was knowing and voluntary. Furthermore, the court held that a challenge to a nunc pro tunc sentence amendmen
• Kelley v. Estelle
  521 F.2d 238· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-17 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, finding the in-court identification was independent of any potentially suggestive pretrial photographic identification.
• Burks v. Egeler
  512 F.2d 221· 6th Cir.· 1975-02-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim of a due process violation based on alleged perjury did not present a constitutional issue because there was no showing of state involvement or knowing use of false evidence by the prosecution.
• Wardell N. Smith v. Warden Charles Wolff
  506 F.2d 556· 8th Cir.· 1974-11-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a state prisoner's procedural forfeiture of state remedies does not preclude federal habeas corpus relief if the prisoner did not deliberately bypass state procedures. The court also remanded for further consideration of claims related to the voluntariness of
• Sammie Preston Irby v. State OF Mo.
  502 F.2d 1096· 8th Cir.· 1974-03-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner had exhausted state remedies regarding his claim that his sentence was enhanced by an uncounselled 1956 conviction, and that the state failed to prove an intelligent waiver of counsel for that conviction.
• Fate Bryant v. Caldwell
  484 F.2d 65· 5th Cir.· 1973-09-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's absence during closing arguments was not a valid basis for habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. James W. Rogers v. Hon. J. Edwin LaVALLEE
  463 F.2d 185· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, as the petitioner had not fully presented his federal claims to the state courts.
• Otto Hillen v. Dir. OF Dep't OF Soc. Serv. & Hous.
  455 F.2d 510· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-23 ·cited 18×
  A transfer of a state prisoner to another state prison pursuant to the Western Interstate Corrections Compact does not implicate federally protected constitutional rights.
• Downey v. Peyton
  451 F.2d 236· 4th Cir.· 1971-11-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while the mention of the defendant's silence at arrest was error, it was harmless. However, allegations of jury bias and discussion of matters outside the evidence require further factual findings.
• Bloss v. People OF the State OF Mich.
  421 F.2d 903· 6th Cir.· 1970-02-17 ·cited 18×
  A state prisoner has no absolute federal constitutional right to bail pending appeal, and federal courts will not review state court discretion in granting or withholding bail if state remedies have not been exhausted.
• Bernes B. Stone v. Wingo
  416 F.2d 857· 6th Cir.· 1969-10-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding no merit in the appellant's claims regarding indictment amendment, unlawful search and seizure, quotient verdict, or failure to instruct on aiding and abetting.
• United States ex rel. Donald Howard Montgomery v. Brierley
  414 F.2d 552· 3d Cir.· 1969-08-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court must determine if all claims were raised in state courts and, if so, conduct evidentiary hearings on exhaustion, relief, and waiver of confession challenge.
• United States ex rel. Richard F. Sniffen v. Follette
  393 F.2d 726· 2d Cir.· 1968-04-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a federal court should not decline to entertain a habeas corpus application raising a federal claim rejected by state courts, even if other state proceedings are pending.
• Roach v. Bennett
  392 F.2d 743· 8th Cir.· 1968-04-15 ·cited 18×
  A state prisoner is entitled to a federal habeas corpus hearing if the state's fact-finding procedure was inadequate, and the federal court should grant a plenary hearing on claims of mental incompetency and plea involuntariness, potentially requiring appointment of counsel.
• Wood v. Crouse
  389 F.2d 747· 10th Cir.· 1968-02-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a prisoner need not pursue a second state appeal on an issue already fully litigated on direct appeal to satisfy federal habeas exhaustion requirements.
• Hamric v. Bailey
  386 F.2d 390· 4th Cir.· 1967-11-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the State's suppression of material evidence favorable to the accused and its knowing use of evidence creating a false impression violated due process, requiring a new trial.
• Ganger v. Peyton
  379 F.2d 709· 4th Cir.· 1967-05-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a federal court should not vacate a state court conviction for ineffective counsel without the prisoner first exhausting state remedies. However, a conviction obtained when the prosecuting attorney had a conflict of interest, representing the victim in a relat
• Clarke v. Grimes
  374 F.2d 550· 5th Cir.· 1967-03-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district judge correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition without a hearing because the petitioner had not exhausted his available remedies in the Georgia state courts.
• Hobson v. Crouse
  332 F.2d 561· 10th Cir.· 1964-06-09 ·cited 18×
  A court's power to try a person is not impaired by forcible abduction into its jurisdiction.
• Wolfe v. Elbert V. Nash
  313 F.2d 393· 8th Cir.· 1963-01-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the generality of the voir dire examination, publicity, or other alleged errors constituted a denial of his constitutional right to a fair trial.
• Wiman v. Argo
  308 F.2d 674· 5th Cir.· 1962-08-31 ·cited 18×
  The court concurred in the result, finding that state remedies were adequate and federal review of state convictions should be limited.
• Linden v. Dickson
  287 F.2d 55· 9th Cir.· 1961-01-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a district court is not required to hold a hearing or examine the state court record if the allegations of fact in a habeas corpus application, even if true, would not entitle the applicant to relief.
• United States ex rel. Elliott v. Hendricks
  213 F.2d 922· 3d Cir.· 1954-06-02 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the federal court's review of state court proceedings under habeas corpus is constitutional and that the relator had not demonstrated a lack of fundamental fairness amounting to a due process violation.