Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Gladden v. Gidley
  337 F.2d 575· 9th Cir.· 1964-10-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that factual issues regarding the voluntariness of the guilty plea and the deliberate bypass of state remedies required an evidentiary hearing.
• United States ex rel. Edward J. Mancini v. Rundle
  337 F.2d 268· 3d Cir.· 1964-10-08 ·cited 12×
  Evidence obtained through an invalid search warrant is inadmissible in state court, even if seized before Mapp v. Ohio, if the conviction had not become final before Mapp and the issue was properly raised.
• Thomaston v. Gladden
  326 F.2d 305· 9th Cir.· 1964-01-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court must review the state post-conviction hearing transcript to determine if it met federal standards, and if not, must hold an evidentiary hearing.
• James v. Alexander
  286 F.2d 645· 10th Cir.· 1961-01-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were based on trial errors, not fundamental constitutional violations, and thus habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
• Petition of J. B. Hicks v. People OF the State OF Mich.
  281 F.2d 645· 6th Cir.· 1960-09-06 ·cited 12×
  The court declined to issue a Certificate of Probable Cause because the petitioner failed to allege facts showing a violation of federal constitutional rights and did not properly file a Notice of Appeal.
• Hastings v. McLEOD
  261 F.2d 627· 10th Cir.· 1958-12-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's allegations were insufficient to justify granting a writ of habeas corpus because he failed to demonstrate denial of a speedy trial and did not allege demanding an earlier trial.
• United States ex rel. Charles Westbrook v. Randolph
  259 F.2d 215· 7th Cir.· 1958-07-08 ·cited 12×
  The concurring judge agrees with the reversal and remand of the district court's order but disagrees with the reasoning regarding the availability of a bystander's bill of exceptions.
• Mayo v. Harlan Blackburn
  250 F.2d 645· 5th Cir.· 1957-12-30 ·cited 12×
  The federal court held that the state prisoner was not denied due process or equal protection by the state court's rulings on motions to quash, sever, or change venue, as the state courts properly considered the evidence and constitutional rights.
• United States ex rel. John Kozicky & John Joseph Klozko v. FAY
  248 F.2d 520· 2d Cir.· 1957-09-20 ·cited 12×
  A federal court cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner who has failed to exhaust available state remedies, even if the failure was due to poverty, unless the state process itself was ineffective.
• United States ex rel. Clyde Roosa v. Martin
  247 F.2d 659· 2d Cir.· 1957-08-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should have been denied due to the appellant's failure to exhaust available state remedies.
• Dickson v. Castle
  244 F.2d 665· 9th Cir.· 1957-05-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a prisoner's failure to seek certiorari from a state supreme court's denial of habeas corpus, after being imprisoned on a judgment he claims is void, does not constitute "special circumstances" excusing exhaustion of state remedies.
• Loper v. Ellis
  224 F.2d 901· 5th Cir.· 1955-08-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a habeas corpus petition may be amended to cure deficiencies, and a hearing may be granted if the amended petition, with supporting evidence, sufficiently raises constitutional claims.
• Woollomes v. Heinze
  198 F.2d 577· 9th Cir.· 1952-08-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the petitioner may have exhausted state remedies, his habeas corpus petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, thus affirming the dismissal.
• Daniels v. Allen
  192 F.2d 763· 4th Cir.· 1951-11-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the prisoners' constitutional rights were so clearly violated and their access to review blocked by procedural technicalities that federal intervention via habeas corpus was warranted.
• Buchanan v. O'Brien
  181 F.2d 601· 1st Cir.· 1950-05-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice, as the petitioner had not yet fully exhausted his state remedies.
• Darr v. Burford
  172 F.2d 668· 10th Cir.· 1949-01-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted all available state remedies, thus the federal court lacked jurisdiction to hear the habeas corpus petition.
• Farrell v. Lanagan
  166 F.2d 845· 1st Cir.· 1948-03-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a denial of due process or constitutional rights, and thus affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• Gordon v. Scudder
  163 F.2d 518· 9th Cir.· 1947-08-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies because he failed to seek certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court after the California Supreme Court denied his habeas corpus petition without opinion.
• Hampson v. Smith
  153 F.2d 417· 9th Cir.· 1945-12-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the habeas corpus petition, as state remedies for reviewing the claimed constitutional violation were inadequate.
• United States ex rel. Doss v. Lindsley
  148 F.2d 22· 7th Cir.· 1945-02-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the District Court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition because the appellant failed to exhaust state remedies and the issues raised were not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Potter v. Dowd
  146 F.2d 244· 7th Cir.· 1944-12-08 ·cited 12×
  Federal courts should not deny a hearing on habeas corpus petitions alleging denial of federal constitutional rights, even if state remedies exist but are practically unavailable or inadequate.
• Herzog v. Colpoys
  143 F.2d 137· D.C. Cir.· 1944-05-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant had no standing in the District Court because he had not exhausted his remedies in Maryland courts and the Maryland Court of Appeals' decision on the statute's constitutionality was binding.
• Boyd v. O'Grady
  121 F.2d 146· 8th Cir.· 1941-06-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the federal district court should not have dismissed the habeas corpus petition without a hearing, as the petitioner presented a rare case of peculiar urgency justifying federal intervention.
• McQUEARY v. Blodgett
  924 F.2d 829· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the appellant's claims under the due process clause, equal protection clause, and the eighth amendment do not state cognizable federal claims.
• Lenea v. Lane
  882 F.2d 1171· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-11 ·cited 11×
  Polygraph test results are admissible in prison disciplinary proceedings, but reliance solely on such results without other evidence does not constitute 'some evidence' required for a finding of guilt, thus violating due process. Officials are entitled to qualified immunity for a
• Neuschafer v. Harol Whitley
  860 F.2d 1470· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-03 ·cited 11×
  The court ultimately concurs with the majority's decision, despite prior reservations.
• Mack v. Varelas
  835 F.2d 995· 2d Cir.· 1987-12-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a state prisoner's civil rights action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which does not challenge the validity of his conviction or seek release, should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, but may be stayed pending the outcome of state co
• Howard v. Mr. Leoneal Davis
  815 F.2d 1429· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to consider an unexhausted claim and that Howard's other claims lacked merit.
• McQUOWN v. D.J. McCartney
  795 F.2d 807· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-28 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the prisoner had not exhausted his state remedies because the California Supreme Court denied his petition for hearing on procedural grounds, not on the merits.
• LEE v. Winston
  717 F.2d 888· 4th Cir.· 1983-09-14 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the involuntary surgical removal of a bullet from a suspect's body, under the circumstances presented, would violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. It also held that such a claim is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not habea
• Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright
  604 F.2d 404· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-12 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding the nolo contendere plea voluntary, the plea bargain not broken, and the arrest claim waived by the plea.
• Moye v. Clerk, DeKALB Cnty. Superior Court
  474 F.2d 1275· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-09 ·cited 11×
  A federal court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to compel a state court clerk to produce documents when mandamus is the sole relief sought.
• Burnett v. Short
  441 F.2d 405· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-13 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a plaintiff need not exhaust state remedies before bringing a Section 1983 claim in federal court. The court also held that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support a Section 1985 conspiracy claim.
• United States ex rel. James Morris Fletcher v. Maroney
  413 F.2d 16· 3d Cir.· 1969-07-08 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the appellant had exhausted his state remedies because his contentions had been presented to and considered by the state's highest court, satisfying the requirements for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Stickney v. Ellis
  286 F.2d 755· 5th Cir.· 1961-02-09 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus court may accept a state court's determination of the voluntariness of a confession if there is no 'vital flaw' in the state proceedings, even without conducting a de novo hearing.
• United States ex rel. William Petersen v. la Vallee
  279 F.2d 396· 2d Cir.· 1960-06-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the appellant's confessions were not coerced as a matter of law, and the jury instructions regarding voluntariness were constitutionally adequate.
• Wilson v. Dixon
  256 F.2d 536· 9th Cir.· 1958-05-29 ·cited 11×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the appellant failed to exhaust state remedies and did not establish valid 'next friend' standing.
• Bowman v. Alvis
  224 F.2d 275· 6th Cir.· 1955-06-10 ·cited 11×
  The court held that habeas corpus cannot be used to review alleged errors in the original trial, only the legality of confinement.
• Hawk v. Jones
  160 F.2d 807· 8th Cir.· 1947-04-18 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a federal court cannot grant habeas corpus relief until the petitioner has exhausted state remedies, including seeking relief via the writ of error coram nobis in Nebraska courts.
• Evans v. Court OF Common Pleas
  959 F.2d 1227· 3d Cir.· 1992-03-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal court may not grant habeas corpus relief before a state retrial when the prior conviction was reversed for trial error, as double jeopardy does not bar such a retrial. The court also found that the petitioner had adequately exhausted her federal due
• Hull v. Freeman
  932 F.2d 159· 3d Cir.· 1991-05-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's order provisionally granting habeas corpus was a final, appealable decision, and that the procedural default doctrine did not bar review of the petitioner's claim. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded for clarification
• West v. Ellis B. Wright, Jr.
  931 F.2d 262· 4th Cir.· 1991-04-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence presented was constitutionally insufficient to convict the appellant of grand larceny under the Jackson v. Virginia standard.
• Walton v. Caspari
  916 F.2d 1352· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's conditional grant of habeas corpus, holding that the prosecutor's discriminatory use of peremptory challenges violated the Equal Protection Clause and that the Garrett decision applied retroactively.
• Mathis v. Zant
  903 F.2d 1368· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-29 ·cited 10×
  The court's opinion accurately reflects circuit law regarding the final judgment rule, but the concurring judge expresses dissatisfaction with its distortion.
• Prather v. Norman
  901 F.2d 915· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-18 ·cited 10×
• Lesko v. Owens
  881 F.2d 44· 3d Cir.· 1989-07-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of gruesome details of a prior murder was unduly prejudicial and violated the defendant's right to a fair trial. Additionally, the court found that a potential plea agreement violation raised serious due process concerns.
• Nichols v. Sullivan
  867 F.2d 1250· 10th Cir.· 1989-02-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by witness testimony regarding prior incarceration or by the sentencing judge's alleged bias, and thus affirmed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition.
• Bond v. Fulcomer
  864 F.2d 306· 3d Cir.· 1989-01-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an untimely petition for review filed with the highest state court can satisfy the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus relief, and that a procedural default may be excused by ineffective assistance of counsel, which must first be presented to stat
• Palmer v. Grammer
  863 F.2d 588· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-15 ·cited 10×
  The Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude retrial when a conviction is reversed due to the erroneous admission of evidence, even if the remaining evidence is insufficient, as the reviewing court must consider all evidence admitted at trial.
• Lane T. Mele v. Fitchburg Dist. Court
  850 F.2d 817· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-15 ·cited 10×
  An issue is not considered fairly presented to the state's highest court for exhaustion purposes unless the applicant has raised it within the application for further appellate review.