Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• United States ex rel. Clyde Millner, Jr. v. Pate
  425 F.2d 249· 7th Cir.· 1970-03-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Opie v. Lenard F. Meacham
  419 F.2d 465· 10th Cir.· 1969-12-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not a basis for habeas corpus relief because the alleged overlooked evidence could have been obtained with due diligence and did not render the trial a mockery of justice.
• Elmwood Props., Inc. v. Murray Conzelman
  418 F.2d 1025· 7th Cir.· 1969-11-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Civil Rights Act because they did not demonstrate purposeful discrimination or a deprivation of constitutional rights, and available state remedies were not exhausted.
• United States ex rel. Heyward Speaks v. Brierley
  417 F.2d 597· 3d Cir.· 1969-10-29 ·cited 8×
  A federal court should not grant habeas corpus relief based on extrinsic evidence of a sentencing judge's intent when state courts have construed the written judgment according to established state law, as this does not violate due process or equal protection.
• VIA v. Perini
  415 F.2d 1052· 6th Cir.· 1969-09-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's claims were not properly before the court or had not exhausted state remedies, and thus the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was correctly denied.
• Wilmer W. Evans v. State OF Ariz.
  410 F.2d 1122· 9th Cir.· 1969-05-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's claims regarding conspiracy, subornation of perjury, and prejudicial pretrial publicity did not warrant federal habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Edward Rybarik v. Maroney
  406 F.2d 1055· 3d Cir.· 1969-02-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a prisoner's parole status does not preclude habeas corpus relief if the prisoner remains in custody. It also held that a claim regarding denial of counsel for post-trial motions and appeal must first be presented to state courts.
• Williams v. Baker
  399 F.2d 681· 10th Cir.· 1968-08-27 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of the prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings.
• Capps v. Patterson
  398 F.2d 345· 10th Cir.· 1968-07-10 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of the petition for habeas corpus, finding no error in the trial court's determination that the appellant consented to the search.
• Brown v. Louie L. Wainwright
  394 F.2d 153· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that some claims in the habeas petition were sufficiently stated to require an evidentiary hearing, while others were not.
• Cotner v. Henry
  394 F.2d 873· 7th Cir.· 1968-04-17 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, disagreeing with the majority's grant of relief.
• Petition of Marc Barry
  388 F.2d 592· 3d Cir.· 1968-01-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant had not exhausted his state remedies under New Jersey's post-conviction relief rules before seeking federal habeas corpus, and thus the district court's denial of the writ was affirmed on that basis.
• Porter v. DeWitt Sinclair
  389 F.2d 277· 5th Cir.· 1967-12-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a habeas corpus petition without a hearing when the petitioner alleged constitutional grounds for relief and offered to present further evidence.
• Swenson v. Donnell
  382 F.2d 248· 8th Cir.· 1967-08-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the principles of Douglas v. California, requiring appointed counsel for indigent defendants on appeal, must be applied retroactively to pre-Douglas convictions.
• Bishop v. The Med. Superintendent OF the Ionia State Hosp.
  377 F.2d 467· 6th Cir.· 1967-05-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not lose jurisdiction when the petitioner was transferred to a different district, and that the petitioner must exhaust state remedies.
• Naugle v. State OF Okla.
  375 F.2d 424· 10th Cir.· 1967-03-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
• Stem v. Turner
  370 F.2d 895· 4th Cir.· 1966-12-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district judge should have granted a plenary hearing on the appellant's claims of ineffective counsel, particularly regarding the failure to object to evidence obtained from a warrantless search.
• Durham v. Haynes
  368 F.2d 989· 8th Cir.· 1966-12-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's claims of constitutional violations during his state trial do not warrant federal habeas corpus relief because they amount to mere procedural errors, not a denial of due process.
• Miller v. State OF Okla.
  363 F.2d 843· 10th Cir.· 1966-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The federal court correctly denied immediate release and affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, as state remedies must be exhausted and state constitutional challenges are not grounds for federal habeas corpus.
• Hedberg v. Pitchess
  362 F.2d 511· 9th Cir.· 1966-06-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas corpus petition solely on the ground of failure to exhaust state remedies, as the petitioner had exhausted all available state remedies and was not required to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari.
• Cade v. Balkcom
  361 F.2d 212· 5th Cir.· 1966-05-17 ·cited 8×
  Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for claims that do not violate fundamental liberties or for ineffective assistance of counsel unless egregious misconduct is proven, and state remedies must be exhausted.
• Patterson v. Hampton
  355 F.2d 470· 10th Cir.· 1966-01-06 ·cited 8×
  The petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies under Rule 35(b), Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, which is an adequate and available mechanism to test the constitutional issue raised.
• Barber v. Page
  355 F.2d 171· 10th Cir.· 1966-01-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the federal district court must first determine whether state remedies have been exhausted before considering the merits of a habeas corpus petition.
• Commonwealth OF Pa. ex rel. George W. Craig v. Maroney
  352 F.2d 30· 3d Cir.· 1965-11-02 ·cited 8×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing solely because the petitioner failed to exhaust available state court remedies.
• Roberts v. Crouse
  350 F.2d 299· 10th Cir.· 1965-08-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that even if one sentence was void, the petitioner would not be entitled to release because other valid sentences remained unserved and unchallenged.
• Henderson v. Heinze
  349 F.2d 67· 9th Cir.· 1965-07-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a petitioner claiming a Fourth Amendment violation in a federal habeas proceeding waives the attorney-client privilege regarding communications about the deliberate by-passing of state remedies.
• United States ex rel. William A. Wynn v. Wilkins
  342 F.2d 777· 2d Cir.· 1965-03-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus was premature because he had not exhausted his available state remedies.
• Achillies G. Cyronne-DeVIRGIN v. State OF Mo. & Dr. Donald B. Peterson
  341 F.2d 568· 8th Cir.· 1965-02-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition should be denied for failure to exhaust state remedies when a newly enacted state statute provides a mechanism for judicial review of the petitioner's current mental condition and potential release.
• Gravette v. Maxwell
  340 F.2d 95· 6th Cir.· 1965-01-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal court properly dismissed a habeas corpus petition when the petitioner had not exhausted available state remedies.
• Harris v. Maxwell
  337 F.2d 710· 6th Cir.· 1964-09-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, as appellant had not presented his federal claims to the Ohio Supreme Court.
• United States ex rel. Theodore R. Krzywosz v. Wilkins
  336 F.2d 509· 2d Cir.· 1964-09-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the prisoner's habeas corpus petition was properly denied because his allegations did not present a federal constitutional claim and he had not exhausted available state remedies for some claims.
• Curtis v. Boeger
  331 F.2d 675· 8th Cir.· 1964-03-06 ·cited 8×
  Appellants were not required to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari before seeking a hearing on their habeas corpus claims in federal district court.
• United States ex rel. Charles Emerick v. Honorable Wilfred Denno
  328 F.2d 309· 2d Cir.· 1964-02-27 ·cited 8×
  A state prisoner must seek a writ of coram nobis to demonstrate exhaustion of state remedies before federal habeas corpus relief is available.
• Hooper v. Nash
  323 F.2d 995· 8th Cir.· 1963-10-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a Missouri prisoner must exhaust state remedies under Rule 27.26 before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Floyd Edgar Martin v. Murphy
  319 F.2d 897· 2d Cir.· 1963-07-02 ·cited 8×
  Federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable because the relator has not exhausted his state remedies by seeking a writ of error coram nobis.
• MacOmber v. Gladden
  304 F.2d 487· 9th Cir.· 1962-06-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the federal habeas corpus petition because the appellant had not yet exhausted his remedies under the Oregon Post-Conviction Hearing Act.
• Petition of William G. Thompson for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. William G. Thompson
  301 F.2d 659· 3d Cir.· 1962-04-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal district court may deny a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition on the merits even if state remedies have not been exhausted.
• Torrance v. Salzinger
  297 F.2d 902· 3d Cir.· 1962-01-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted available state remedies for his claim of insufficient evidence, and that his other claims regarding prejudicial publicity and the admission of co-defendant testimony were without merit.
• Kirby v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  296 F.2d 151· 4th Cir.· 1961-11-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge's remarks during sentencing, even if viewed unfavorably, did not render the proceedings unconstitutional or a nullity.
• Duncan v. State OF Me.
  295 F.2d 528· 1st Cir.· 1961-11-02 ·cited 8×
  A district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition from a prisoner held outside its territorial jurisdiction, even if the prisoner was originally held within the district under a state court judgment and is now held by federal authorities under a contract.
• United States ex rel. Edward Aleen v. Murphy
  295 F.2d 385· 2d Cir.· 1961-10-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the relator had not demonstrated exhaustion of state remedies, thus denying his application for habeas corpus.
• Eckman v. Byington
  290 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1961-04-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's appeal was not taken in good faith and denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
• Morris v. Mayo
  277 F.2d 103· 5th Cir.· 1960-04-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal court will not consider claims on habeas corpus that were not raised in the state tribunal, affirming the denial of the writ.
• United States ex rel. Samuel Tito Williams v. la Vallee
  276 F.2d 645· 2d Cir.· 1960-03-28 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the relator failed to exhaust state remedies.
• Steier v. NEW York State Educ. Comm'r
  271 F.2d 13· 2d Cir.· 1959-09-22 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge believes the plaintiff should have an opportunity to prove his claims of arbitrary dismissal from college, and that the case should be remanded for trial.
• Bailey v. Henslee
  264 F.2d 744· 8th Cir.· 1959-04-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant waived his constitutional right to compulsory process by failing to raise the issue on direct appeal and that habeas corpus cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal.
• Parker v. Ellis
  258 F.2d 937· 5th Cir.· 1958-08-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state was not constitutionally obligated to provide counsel for a non-capital offense, and the trial was not fundamentally unfair.
• The United States v. Murphy
  254 F.2d 438· 2d Cir.· 1958-04-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's allegations did not demonstrate a denial of due process, even if proven true.
• Arsenault v. Gavin
  248 F.2d 777· 1st Cir.· 1957-10-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable because the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not presenting his federal constitutional claims to the state courts.
• Franey v. State
  211 F.2d 447· 5th Cir.· 1954-03-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant was not subjected to double jeopardy or double punishment violating due process.