Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Keller v. Tinsley
  335 F.2d 144· 10th Cir.· 1964-08-06 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of the writ of habeas corpus, finding no constitutional violation regarding speedy trial, assistance of counsel, or counsel on appeal.
• Sepulveda v. The State OF Colo.
  335 F.2d 581· 10th Cir.· 1964-07-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action because the plaintiff had not exhausted available state remedies.
• Hampton v. Buchkoe
  334 F.2d 6· 6th Cir.· 1964-07-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal court may deny habeas corpus relief to an applicant who has deliberately bypassed state court procedures.
• United States ex rel. Burton Weinstein v. FAY
  333 F.2d 815· 2d Cir.· 1964-07-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a confession obtained after 36 hours of detention, coupled with a sham vagrancy charge and the defendant's deteriorating medical condition, was involuntary and violated constitutional rights.
• Zimmer v. Langlois
  331 F.2d 424· 1st Cir.· 1964-05-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prisoner's motion for a certificate of probable cause was untimely and lacked merit.
• Tompa v. Commonwealth OF Va. ex rel. W. K. Cunningham, Jr.
  331 F.2d 552· 4th Cir.· 1964-03-31 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge holds that the pro se petition adequately raised the issue of incompetent counsel and that the petitioner was entitled to a federal hearing.
• Allison v. Holman
  326 F.2d 294· 5th Cir.· 1963-12-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a habeas corpus hearing because the state court proceedings provided a full, fair, and adequate record.
• Waldon v. The State OF Iowa
  323 F.2d 852· 8th Cir.· 1963-10-24 ·cited 10×
  A state prisoner cannot use a federal declaratory judgment action to challenge the validity of his conviction; habeas corpus is the exclusive federal remedy.
• Application of James Brown v. Rayfield
  320 F.2d 96· 5th Cir.· 1963-07-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate circumstances rendering state remedies ineffective, thus they must exhaust state remedies before federal habeas corpus relief can be granted.
• Saulsbury v. Lamoyne Green
  318 F.2d 320· 6th Cir.· 1963-06-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal court properly dismissed a habeas corpus petition when the petitioner had not exhausted available state remedies, even if prior state remedies were not pursued.
• Nolan v. Elbert V. Nash
  316 F.2d 776· 8th Cir.· 1963-05-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the District Court properly denied the application for a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing, as the issues raised were previously decided and the record supported those determinations.
• Wilson v. State OF Neb.
  316 F.2d 84· 8th Cir.· 1963-04-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the issues raised by the petitioner, including sufficiency of evidence and evidentiary rulings, are not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding and must be raised on direct appeal.
• Walker v. Peppersack
  316 F.2d 119· 4th Cir.· 1963-03-27 ·cited 10×
  The Fourth Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment via Mapp v. Ohio, prohibits the use of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure, even if state law at the time of conviction would have permitted it.
• United States ex rel. Ronald J. Sadness v. Wilkins
  312 F.2d 559· 2d Cir.· 1963-01-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the facts found by the district court did not establish as a matter of law that assigned counsel's representation was incompetent, despite counsel's failure to advise the defendant of the mandatory sentence consequences for a second felony offender.
• Battista v. Kenton
  312 F.2d 167· 2d Cir.· 1963-01-10 ·cited 10×
  A prisoner transferred to federal custody under 18 U.S.C. § 5003 is still considered a state prisoner for habeas corpus purposes and must exhaust state remedies before seeking federal relief. The application for a certificate of probable cause is denied.
• McGEE v. Eyman
  310 F.2d 230· 9th Cir.· 1962-11-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution or a certificate of probable cause because the petitioner failed to raise a federal constitutional issue in the state courts or in his federal habeas petition.
• Player v. Steiner
  292 F.2d 1· 4th Cir.· 1961-06-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a prisoner's allegations regarding the sufficiency of evidence for one element of a state crime do not raise a substantial constitutional question sufficient for federal habeas corpus review.
• Moore v. Henslee
  276 F.2d 876· 8th Cir.· 1960-03-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellants' constitutional rights were not violated by their prosecution by information, the jury selection process, or the admission of their confessions, and affirmed the denial of their habeas corpus petitions.
• Morrison v. Smyth
  273 F.2d 544· 4th Cir.· 1960-01-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner must exhaust state remedies regarding the denial of counsel claim before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Spires v. Dowd
  271 F.2d 659· 7th Cir.· 1959-11-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner is entitled to have the district court act upon the allegations in his habeas corpus petition, or hold a hearing to determine the facts, and that the warden is not justified in preventing the petitioner from mailing legal documents to the state
• Irvin v. Dowd
  251 F.2d 548· 7th Cir.· 1958-01-29 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies and that the Indiana Supreme Court's decision was not subject to review in this federal proceeding.
• Simpson v. Harley O. Teets
  239 F.2d 890· 9th Cir.· 1956-11-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the denial of a habeas corpus petition without opinion does not mean the petition was not considered.
• United States ex rel. Lawrence ST. John v. Cummings
  233 F.2d 187· 2d Cir.· 1956-05-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed as moot because the petitioner has been released on parole.
• United States ex rel. Silvio de Vita v. McCORKLE
  216 F.2d 743· 3d Cir.· 1954-11-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a district judge must examine the full state court record, not just the opinion, when considering a habeas corpus petition, especially when the state court's consideration of the issues is questioned.
• United States ex rel. Gawron v. Ragen
  211 F.2d 902· 7th Cir.· 1954-04-15 ·cited 10×
  A federal court may decline to award a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner if the legality of detention has been determined by the highest state court.
• Bacom v. Sullivan
  194 F.2d 166· 5th Cir.· 1952-02-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that extraordinary circumstances justified bypassing the usual exhaustion of remedies rule, allowing federal habeas corpus review on the merits.
• Collins v. Frisbie
  189 F.2d 464· 6th Cir.· 1951-05-28 ·cited 10×
  The judgment of the District Court dismissing the application should be affirmed.
• Thibodo v. United States
  187 F.2d 249· 9th Cir.· 1951-02-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a lienholder's interest, represented by street improvement bonds, constitutes a property right that must be protected in eminent domain proceedings, and the government may be liable for taking this interest without just compensation if proper notice was given
• Davis v. O'Connell
  185 F.2d 513· 8th Cir.· 1950-12-14 ·cited 10×
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction to grant habeas corpus relief to a petitioner challenging extradition if they have not exhausted all available state remedies in the demanding state.
• McGARTY v. O'Brien
  180 F.2d 987· 1st Cir.· 1950-03-27 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies by failing to present his federal constitutional claim through available state procedures like a writ of error.
• United States ex rel. Jackson. v. Ruthazer
  181 F.2d 588· 2d Cir.· 1950-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a relator who received a full and fair hearing on the merits in state court, even if the state court doubted the applicability of a federal doctrine, has had their rights protected.
• Carqueville v. Woodruff
  153 F.2d 1011· 6th Cir.· 1946-03-11 ·cited 10×
  Appellants failed to exhaust state remedies and did not present a substantial federal question, thus their habeas corpus petition was properly denied.
• GUY v. Utecht
  144 F.2d 913· 8th Cir.· 1944-10-03 ·cited 10×
  A federal court should not entertain a habeas corpus petition from a state prisoner if the state courts have already fairly adjudicated the federal claims, and the prisoner has not exhausted remedies in the Supreme Court.
• Hogue v. Duffy
  124 F.2d 864· 9th Cir.· 1942-01-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal district court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus when state remedies have been exhausted but the petitioner has not sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Mikel v. Thieret
  887 F.2d 733· 7th Cir.· 1989-10-04 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed the denial of the federal habeas corpus petition, finding that Mikel's claims were either procedurally defaulted, lacked merit, or were not properly exhausted.
• Walker v. Dugger
  860 F.2d 1010· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-22 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas relief because the petitioner did not exhaust his ex post facto claim in state court, and the respondents did not waive their right to raise the exhaustion defense.
• Evans v. Lewis
  855 F.2d 631· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-22 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction is affirmed, but the death sentence is reversed due to ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase.
• Chavez v. Dareld Kerby
  848 F.2d 1101· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 9×
  The admission of prior act testimony and the refusal to instruct on a lesser included offense did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights, thus habeas corpus relief is denied.
• KIM v. C.J. Villalobos
  799 F.2d 1317· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 9×
  A state prisoner fairly presents federal claims to the state courts, satisfying the exhaustion requirement, even if the state court cites In re Swain for lack of particularity, if the claims are alleged with as much particularity as is practicable.
• McKINNEY v. Estelle
  657 F.2d 740· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper argument, in the context of prior improprieties and the lack of a ruling on the objection, deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• McCLAIN v. Honorable Charles Kitchen
  659 F.2d 870· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-23 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies and the civil rights claims for failure to state a cause of action.
• Abell v. Frank
  625 F.2d 653· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-11 ·cited 9×
  The court held that abstention under the Pullman doctrine is appropriate because a newly enacted state privilege statute may resolve the federal constitutional issues presented.
• Russell v. Honorable Judge Lamar Knight
  488 F.2d 96· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-05 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a petition styled as mandamus, alleging denial of appeal rights, could be treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
• Theriault v. State OF Miss.
  390 F.2d 657· 5th Cir.· 1968-03-05 ·cited 9×
  Relief under the All Writs Statute or coram nobis is unavailable to attack a state court conviction for which the sentence has been fully served.
• United States ex rel. Louis Herbert Martin v. FAY
  352 F.2d 418· 2d Cir.· 1965-11-08 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed the lower court's decision, but the concurring judge expressed uncertainty about the reasoning regarding the voluntariness of a guilty plea.
• Martin v. Spradley
  341 F.2d 89· 5th Cir.· 1965-01-26 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the federal district court correctly dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner had not exhausted his available state remedies.
• United States ex rel. Harrison Stewart v. Ragen
  231 F.2d 312· 7th Cir.· 1956-03-20 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a pro se petitioner's motions for a certificate of probable cause and leave to appeal in forma pauperis must be denied due to the absence of federal jurisdiction, as state remedies were not exhausted.
• Nelson v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections
  610 F. Supp. 2d 1323· M.D. Fla.· 2009-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The Court held that the habeas petition was timely filed and that the petitioner's claims regarding the exclusion of evidence, use of privileged communications, and introduction of bad acts evidence were either not cognizable, unexhausted, procedurally barred, or without merit. F
• Yohey v. Collins
  985 F.2d 222· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that claims raised for the first time on appeal or in a reply brief are not considered, and that state law claims do not provide a basis for federal habeas relief unless they rise to constitutional dimension.
• Eugenio L. Rodriguez v. Holmes
  963 F.2d 799· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for the pro se litigant's civil rights action was tolled during the pendency of his state court proceedings, and therefore the action was timely filed.