Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Chavez v. Dickson
  300 F.2d 683· 9th Cir.· 1962-03-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that appellants failed to exhaust state remedies regarding the accuracy of the Brenhaug statement due to lack of objection in state court. It also found that variances in the Hernandez statement were not material or prejudicial, and the introduction of photographs
• Yaeger v. Dir. OF Dep't OF Welf. & Insts.
  298 F.2d 55· 4th Cir.· 1962-01-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the case must be remanded to the District Court for findings on whether the petitioner has exhausted state remedies before raising his constitutional claim in federal court.
• Forest Orville Buchanan v. McGEE
  290 F.2d 711· 9th Cir.· 1961-05-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction because it lacked specific allegations and failed to demonstrate exhaustion of state remedies.
• Shelton v. State OF S.C. & W. M. Manning
  285 F.2d 540· 4th Cir.· 1961-01-10 ·cited 6×
  A state prisoner's federal habeas corpus petition may be dismissed if a state court appeal is pending that will address the same issues.
• Sims v. Smyth
  282 F.2d 814· 4th Cir.· 1960-10-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner had not demonstrated exhaustion of state remedies, and thus the federal court should not have entertained the habeas corpus petition.
• Gagliasso v. Rood
  279 F.2d 822· 4th Cir.· 1960-06-21 ·cited 6×
  The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, which is required for appeals in habeas corpus cases.
• United States ex rel. Ronald H. Connelly v. Cormier
  279 F.2d 37· 5th Cir.· 1960-06-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Vasser v. Raines
  274 F.2d 369· 10th Cir.· 1959-12-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction and sentence were not void because the Federal conviction for forgery could have constituted a violation of the Oklahoma forgery statute, and dual prosecution by federal and state sovereigns is permissible.
• United States ex rel. Paul Crump v. Sain
  264 F.2d 424· 7th Cir.· 1959-03-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a state prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief has exhausted state remedies when the state's highest court has already ruled on the federal constitutional question presented, even if a different state post-conviction procedure exists.
• Plater v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction
  261 F.2d 445· 4th Cir.· 1958-12-05 ·cited 6×
  The Fourth Circuit held that the prisoner's appeal should be dismissed for want of a certificate of probable cause, as the appeal was without merit.
• Robert O. (Bob) Hurt v. McLEOD
  262 F.2d 109· 10th Cir.· 1958-11-28 ·cited 6×
  The federal court should not entertain a habeas corpus petition until the applicant has exhausted all available remedies in the state courts.
• James Harvey (alias Berkley McCargo) v. Smyth
  255 F.2d 21· 4th Cir.· 1958-04-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that federal courts lack authority to grant a certificate of probable cause and dismiss the appeal when Supreme Court precedent dictates no federal intervention is permissible.
• Davis v. Pepersack
  255 F.2d 29· 4th Cir.· 1958-04-25 ·cited 6×
  The federal court should not consider the statutory interpretation issue until state remedies are exhausted, and other contentions lack merit.
• United States ex rel. Sullivan v. Heinze
  250 F.2d 427· 9th Cir.· 1957-11-19 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the petition for a certificate of probable cause and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Application of Raymond C. Hodge
  248 F.2d 843· 9th Cir.· 1957-10-21 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the certificate of probable cause because the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies as required for federal habeas corpus.
• United States ex rel. Reinhold Langer v. Ragen
  237 F.2d 827· 7th Cir.· 1956-11-01 ·cited 6×
  A federal court cannot grant habeas corpus relief on claims not first presented to and exhausted in state courts, nor on claims that do not implicate federal constitutional rights.
• Devandlis Wiggins v. Ragen
  238 F.2d 309· 7th Cir.· 1956-10-25 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, reaffirming that while federal courts generally defer to state court decisions on constitutional rights, they must hold a hearing if the averments present unusual circumstances.
• Thresa Williams and Jennie L. Richards v. Dalton
  231 F.2d 646· 6th Cir.· 1956-04-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that federal courts should decline to entertain an action for declaratory relief under the Civil Rights Act when the plaintiff has not exhausted available state remedies, especially in cases involving potential friction between federal and state jurisdictions.
• Thompson v. Overlade
  216 F.2d 492· 7th Cir.· 1954-11-04 ·cited 6×
  A general allegation of exhausting state remedies is insufficient to grant federal habeas corpus relief.
• Fouquette v. Bernard
  198 F.2d 860· 9th Cir.· 1952-08-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus application because the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies on some issues and no error was found on others.
• Ekberg v. McGEE
  191 F.2d 625· 9th Cir.· 1951-08-31 ·cited 6×
• Thomas v. Duffy
  191 F.2d 360· 9th Cir.· 1951-08-31 ·cited 6×
  The court certified probable cause for appeal and stayed the execution, finding substantial questions regarding the denial of habeas corpus relief based on alleged coerced confession.
• United States ex rel. DE Frates v. Ragen
  181 F.2d 1001· 7th Cir.· 1950-05-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim of double jeopardy did not rise to the level of a federal due process violation, and that he had failed to exhaust his state remedies.
• United States ex rel. Crist v. Ragen
  157 F.2d 621· 7th Cir.· 1946-10-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the issue of whether extradition waived the state's right to reincarcerate a parole violator is a non-federal question governed by state law.
• Dawsett v. Benson
  156 F.2d 669· 6th Cir.· 1946-08-05 ·cited 6×
  A federal district court correctly denied a habeas corpus petition when the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not seeking review from the United States Supreme Court after the highest state court adjudicated the merits of the petition.
• Sweet v. Howard
  155 F.2d 715· 7th Cir.· 1946-05-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal court will not entertain a habeas corpus petition until state remedies, including appellate review of a writ of error coram nobis, have been exhausted.
• Davis v. Smyth
  155 F.2d 3· 4th Cir.· 1946-04-08 ·cited 6×
  A federal court will not entertain a habeas corpus petition from a state prisoner claiming a federal constitutional violation until the prisoner has exhausted all available state court remedies, including seeking review in the U.S. Supreme Court.
• United States ex rel. Hughes v. Ragen
  154 F.2d 289· 7th Cir.· 1946-03-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding waiver and sentence expiration have been previously decided adversely, and he has not exhausted state remedies.
• Lyon v. Harkness
  151 F.2d 731· 1st Cir.· 1945-11-09 ·cited 6×
  Federal courts should not entertain habeas corpus petitions from individuals in state custody until all available state remedies have been exhausted, regardless of whether the petitioner has been convicted.
• United States ex rel. Mazy v. Ragen
  149 F.2d 948· 7th Cir.· 1945-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal court cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus for a state prisoner unless all state remedies have been exhausted, and the issue raised is jurisdictional, not a mere error of state law.
• Application of Taylor
  139 F.2d 1018· 7th Cir.· 1944-01-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that leave to appeal in forma pauperis from an order denying a habeas corpus petition is denied because the petition lacks merit and the court lacks jurisdiction.
• Sharpe v. Commonwealth of Ky.
  135 F.2d 974· 6th Cir.· 1943-06-04 ·cited 6×
  Federal courts may not be precluded by state procedural limitations from considering constitutional claims in habeas corpus petitions, especially concerning coerced confessions or newly discovered evidence of innocence.
• Johnson v. Wilson
  131 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1942-11-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the habeas corpus petition without prejudice because the petitioner failed to exhaust available state remedies.
• Wendall Hall v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-11-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted because the state courts relied on independent and adequate state-law procedural grounds, and the petitioner failed to establish cause for the default or demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
• Booker v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  22 F.4th 954· 11th Cir.· 2022-01-03 ·cited 5×
  The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of standing, holding that the State failed to demonstrate an actual or imminent injury traceable to the district court's order appointing federal counsel.
• Ballard v. McNeil
  785 F. Supp. 2d 1299· N.D. Fla.· 2011-03-25 ·cited 5×
  The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• LEE v. Rapid City Area Sch. Dist. NO. 51-4
  981 F.2d 316· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-03 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony about the substance of complaints against a teacher, as the offer of proof was too general and the excluded evidence was largely cumulative.
• Burkett v. Fulcomer
  951 F.2d 1431· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-20 ·cited 5×
  The majority found a constitutional violation due to delay in sentencing and appeal, while the dissent disagreed, emphasizing lack of demonstrable prejudice.
• Barima Inv. Co., Inc. v. United States
  771 F. Supp. 1187· S.D. Fla.· 1991-08-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff's inverse condemnation claim was not ripe for adjudication because the plaintiff failed to utilize available state procedures for obtaining compensation.
• Donovan J.R. Blissett v. Lefevre
  924 F.2d 434· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of a denied fair trial due to inadequate jury instructions on witness immunity, improper introduction of arrest evidence, and denial of defense witness immunity were without merit.
• Cruz v. Warden OF Dwight Corr. Ctr. & Neil F. Hartigan
  907 F.2d 665· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a habeas petitioner must fairly present all factual allegations and legal theories to state courts before seeking federal habeas relief, and that a pending state post-conviction petition constitutes an available and meaningful state remedy.
• Renzi v. Commonwealth OF Va.
  794 F.2d 155· 4th Cir.· 1986-06-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the prosecution's misleading conduct in failing to produce a key informant, despite promises, deprived the defendant of due process, entitling him to a writ of habeas corpus.
• Kermit F. Holton v. Lanson Newsome
  750 F.2d 1513· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner's claims regarding marital privilege, undisclosed evidence, and unconstitutional search and seizure lacked merit.
• Kreck v. Spalding
  721 F.2d 1229· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the information was constitutionally defective for failing to adequately apprise the defendant of the charges, and that procedural default did not bar federal habeas review.
• Hooks v. Wainwright
  536 F. Supp. 1330· M.D. Fla.· 1982-04-14 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the state's proposed law library system alone is insufficient to guarantee indigent inmates meaningful access to the courts, and that some form of attorney assistance is constitutionally required.
• Karcher v. Louie L. Wainwright
  476 F.2d 179· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-20 ·cited 5×
  A guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defects, including the right to a speedy trial, and federal habeas relief requires exhaustion of state remedies.
• Harris v. Neil
  437 F.2d 63· 6th Cir.· 1971-01-29 ·cited 5×
  The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply to preliminary hearings in Tennessee, and the Supreme Court's decision in Coleman v. Alabama is not retroactively applicable.
• Barefield v. State OF NEW Mexico
  434 F.2d 307· 10th Cir.· 1970-11-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a retrospective competency hearing, even if held years after the plea, is not per se inadequate if the psychiatrists who examined the defendant prior to the plea testify.
• Brown v. Frisbie
  178 F.2d 271· 6th Cir.· 1949-12-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court should have allowed the petitioner to present evidence supporting his factual allegations in his habeas corpus petition.
• Cunningham v. State
  131 So. 3d 793· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-02-10 ·cited 4×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District, struck a motion for clarification as unauthorized due to lack of jurisdiction, but addressed its content to clarify that it had followed a unique procedural practice of independently reviewing all summarily-denied grounds in