Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Wild v. State OF Okla.
  187 F.2d 409· 10th Cir.· 1951-02-21 ·cited 18×
  A federal court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus based on perjured testimony unless it was knowingly used by prosecuting officers.
• Whitten v. Bennett
  141 F.2d 295· 7th Cir.· 1944-03-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that federal habeas corpus petitions were properly denied because state remedies were not exhausted and a certificate of probable cause was lacking. The court also rejected claims regarding the change of the institution's name and the effect of out-of-state paroles
• Jones v. Dowd
  128 F.2d 331· 7th Cir.· 1942-05-22 ·cited 18×
  A federal court cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus to review alleged errors of law by a state trial court if that court had jurisdiction, and if the petitioner has not exhausted available state remedies.
• Bassette v. Thompson
  915 F.2d 932· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-05 ·cited 17×
  The court held that most of the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred under Teague v. Lane and state law, and the remaining claims lacked merit.
• Collier v. Jones
  910 F.2d 770· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of perjury and racial discrimination in jury selection were procedurally defaulted, and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim was without merit.
• Falconer v. Lane
  905 F.2d 1129· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-29 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the jury instructions given at trial were constitutionally inadequate under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause because they allowed the jury to return a murder verdict even if findings supported voluntary manslaughter.
• Davis v. Dugger
  829 F.2d 1513· 11th Cir.· 1987-09-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the petitioner was not guilty of deliberate delay that would support dismissal under Rule 9(a), and exhaustion of state remedies was achieved before final action by the district court.
• Dickerson v. State OF La.
  816 F.2d 220· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-13 ·cited 17×
  Pre-trial federal habeas corpus relief is not available to adjudicate a state prisoner's speedy trial or due process claims when those issues can be resolved through pending state court proceedings.
• Hall v. State OF Iowa & Attorney Gen. of Iowa
  705 F.2d 283· 8th Cir.· 1983-04-15 ·cited 17×
  The court held that while the state violated an agreement with counsel by seeking consent to search, this did not violate the Sixth Amendment because the evidence would have been obtained lawfully through other means or the error was harmless.
• Grace v. Butterworth
  635 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1980-06-27 ·cited 17×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus, holding that the appellants' claims regarding jury instructions were procedurally defaulted or did not rise to the level of constitutional error.
• Franklin v. Wyrick
  529 F.2d 79· 8th Cir.· 1976-01-08 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a state prisoner must exhaust all available state remedies, including appeal to the highest state court, before filing a federal habeas corpus petition. It also held that a federal court need not grant an evidentiary hearing if the state court provided a full
• Tooten v. Shevin
  493 F.2d 173· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-25 ·cited 17×
  A pretrial application for a writ of prohibition to a state supreme court does not satisfy the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus relief.
• United States v. Ragen
  246 F.2d 264· 7th Cir.· 1957-07-03 ·cited 17×
  A federal court cannot grant habeas corpus relief if the petitioner has not exhausted state remedies by presenting the same federal claims to state courts, and the claims themselves do not present grounds for federal relief.
• United States ex rel. Donald H. Lilyroth v. Ragen
  222 F.2d 654· 7th Cir.· 1955-05-25 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a petitioner must exhaust state remedies and cannot present different facts to federal court than were presented to state court.
• Massey v. Moore
  205 F.2d 665· 5th Cir.· 1953-06-26 ·cited 17×
  A state prisoner's claim of mental incompetence at the time of trial, raised for the first time via habeas corpus, is an impermissible collateral attack on a final judgment. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply to state court proceedings, and a state's failure to a
• Pilchak v. Camper
  935 F.2d 145· 8th Cir.· 1991-06-04 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus, finding that the defendant's life sentence was a fundamentally unjust incarceration due to constitutional violations, allowing an exception to the cause-prejudice rule.
• Edward v. Lawrence
  900 F.2d 127· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's failure to investigate potential alibi witnesses constituted deficient performance, and the case must be remanded for a determination of prejudice.
• Bliss v. A.L. Lockhart
  891 F.2d 1335· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing and that the petitioner's claims were not procedurally barred due to ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct.
• Lanigan v. Maloney
  853 F.2d 40· 1st Cir.· 1988-08-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court properly found a constitutional violation in the jury's reasonable doubt instructions and that the claim was not procedurally barred.
• Shaheed Madyun v. Young
  852 F.2d 1029· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 16×
• Waterhouse v. Rodriguez
  848 F.2d 375· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the petitioner exhausted his Sixth Amendment claim, the per se rule from Solina v. United States does not apply when counsel is disbarred during a pretrial proceeding but withdraws upon learning of the disbarment and had no incentive to fear exposure fro
• Mauricio v. Duckworth
  840 F.2d 454· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the State's knowing failure to disclose the identity of an alibi rebuttal witness violated due process and was not harmless error.
• Richard O.J. Mayberry v. Petsock
  821 F.2d 179· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-15 ·cited 16×
  A habeas petitioner must provide specific factual allegations of state obstruction to excuse the failure to exhaust state remedies, and vague claims are insufficient to warrant discovery or an evidentiary hearing.
• Matusiak v. Kelly
  786 F.2d 536· 2d Cir.· 1986-03-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas petition because the state court's acceptance of the guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary, violating due process.
• United States ex rel. Paul K. Searcy v. Greer
  768 F.2d 906· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-26 ·cited 16×
  The admission of other crimes evidence, even if erroneous under state law, does not warrant federal habeas corpus relief unless it renders the trial fundamentally unfair. Denial of continuances for alibi witnesses was not an abuse of discretion given defense counsel's lack of dil
• Leroy v. R.C. Marshall
  757 F.2d 94· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the 'cause and prejudice' rule of Wainwright v. Sykes applies to procedural defaults in state court, requiring a habeas petitioner to demonstrate cause and prejudice for failure to raise issues on direct appeal.
• Perron v. Perrin
  742 F.2d 669· 1st Cir.· 1984-08-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of a speedy trial were without merit.
• Snethen v. Crispus NIX
  736 F.2d 1241· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-20 ·cited 16×
  A federal habeas corpus petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed, and the futility exception to exhaustion requires a clear manifestation that state courts will refuse to entertain claims, not merely a prediction of an unfavorable outcome.
• Smith v. J.D. White
  719 F.2d 390· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus is not required to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the Alabama Supreme Court to exhaust state remedies.
• Clark v. Williams
  693 F.2d 381· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 16×
  A civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not the proper federal remedy when a prisoner's allegations, if true, would undermine the validity of his confinement; habeas corpus is the sole remedy in such circumstances.
• Williams v. Dallas Cnty. Comm'rs
  689 F.2d 1212· 1st Cir.· 1982-10-25 ·cited 16×
  A state prisoner's claim attacking the constitutionality of his incarceration due to discriminatory jury selection is cognizable only through habeas corpus, not under § 1983, and must first exhaust state remedies.
• Thomas v. Wyrick
  687 F.2d 235· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-20 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that the petitioner's procedural failures, including the provisional nature of the trial court's ruling and the failure to make an offer of proof, precluded a constitutional review of the exclusion of character witnes
• Smith v. Atkins
  678 F.2d 883· 10th Cir.· 1982-05-19 ·cited 16×
  A federal district court must allow a habeas petitioner to amend their petition to delete unexhausted claims rather than dismissing the entire petition, unless the petitioner chooses not to amend.
• United States ex rel. John Clauser v. Shadid
  677 F.2d 591· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, requiring dismissal of his entire habeas petition.
• Gulf Water Benefaction Co. v. The Pub. Util. Comm'n OF Tex. & the State of Tex.
  674 F.2d 462· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction over state utility rate-making disputes, and that the Chapter XI petition was appropriately dismissed due to lack of prosecution and prospect of arrangement.
• Knott v. Mabry
  671 F.2d 1208· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial counsel's cross-examination of the state's toxicologist, while perhaps not ideal, fell within the bounds of constitutionally adequate representation and did not prejudice the defense.
• Harless v. Anderson
  664 F.2d 610· 6th Cir.· 1981-11-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the jury instructions were so garbled and confusing that they violated the defendant's constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of law, and that the petitioner had exhausted his state remedies.
• Barnes v. Jones
  665 F.2d 427· 2d Cir.· 1981-11-23 ·cited 16×
  Appointed appellate counsel owes a duty to his client to pursue colorable claims on appeal, and failure to do so constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Thompson v. White
  661 F.2d 103· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the sheriff's personal selection of the entire jury panel, especially in a case where the victim was a law enforcement officer, created a sufficient risk of prejudice to violate due process.
• Alburquerque v. Bara
  628 F.2d 767· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the state's procedural requirements for raising a federal constitutional claim were not satisfied in a way that would bar federal habeas review, and that the appellant's trial jury was sworn after the date of Taylor v. Louisiana, making the ruling applicable.
• Sydney Spiegel v. Sch. Dist. NO. 1
  600 F.2d 264· 10th Cir.· 1979-06-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal civil rights claim was barred by the statute of limitations because he failed to file within two years of his termination, and his prior state court action did not toll the limitations period.
• Klimas v. Mabry
  599 F.2d 842· 8th Cir.· 1979-05-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Arkansas Supreme Court's failure to afford Klimas a jury redetermination of his habitual criminal charge, after invalidating some prior convictions, violated due process. The denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court does not preclude federal habeas corpus
• Pruitt v. Hutto
  574 F.2d 956· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the in-court identification procedure, though potentially suggestive, was reliable under the totality of the circumstances and that the loss of the trial transcript did not prevent sufficient review.
• Edwards v. Joyner
  566 F.2d 960· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion, and this denial is affirmed.
• Leahmon Triplett v. Wyrick
  549 F.2d 57· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a district court should address exhausted claims in a habeas petition even if unexhausted claims are also present, and that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies for all claims.
• Stubbs v. Smith
  533 F.2d 64· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of the writ of habeas corpus, finding that even if the statutory presumption of possession was unconstitutionally applied, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of the appellant's guilt.
• Austin v. Swenson
  522 F.2d 168· 8th Cir.· 1975-09-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition on non-exhaustion grounds when new evidence warranted an evidentiary hearing and the state had previously had a chance to address the issue.
• Cage v. Auger
  514 F.2d 1231· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies for his claim regarding illegally seized evidence, and that the witness's comment did not rise to a constitutional due process violation.
• Ardister v. Hopper
  500 F.2d 229· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-13 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief on most grounds but remanded two issues to the district court for conditional dismissal, allowing the petitioner to pursue them in state court.
• Blunt v. Wolff
  501 F.2d 1138· 8th Cir.· 1974-08-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the federal district court should not have considered claims that were intertwined with an unexhausted Sixth Amendment claim regarding appellate counsel, and thus the case must be remanded for dismissal without prejudice to allow the state courts to address th