Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Pannell v. Cunningham
  302 F.2d 633· 4th Cir.· 1962-04-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel and that the state court's findings on jurisdiction and sanity were adequately supported.
• Alcorn v. Gladden
  286 F.2d 689· 9th Cir.· 1961-02-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a prior, invalid state coram nobis proceeding does not preclude a federal habeas corpus petition if the petitioner has not yet pursued a valid state post-conviction remedy.
• Anderson v. Jones
  281 F.2d 684· 6th Cir.· 1960-07-29 ·cited 4×
  The Court of Appeals denied the certificate of probable cause and dismissed the appeal because the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies.
• Coy Litchfield v. Tinsley
  281 F.2d 486· 10th Cir.· 1960-06-16 ·cited 4×
  The federal court denied habeas corpus because the prisoner failed to exhaust state remedies by not timely seeking a writ of error for his conviction.
• Helms v. Beryle C. Sacks
  278 F.2d 687· 6th Cir.· 1960-05-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims did not present probable cause for a constitutional violation, and therefore, a certificate of probable cause would not be issued.
• Linden v. Dickson
  278 F.2d 755· 9th Cir.· 1960-03-24 ·cited 4×
  A district court may deny a habeas corpus petition without a hearing or reviewing the trial transcript if the petition lacks specific factual allegations and the state court's opinion, considered alongside the petition, demonstrates fair consideration of the claims.
• United States ex rel. Roy Helwig v. Maroney
  271 F.2d 329· 3d Cir.· 1959-10-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the writ of habeas corpus, as the appellant failed to prove his claims of a frame-up, prosecutorial misconduct, or a sham hearing.
• Tickle v. Summers
  270 F.2d 848· 4th Cir.· 1959-10-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a petitioner seeking habeas corpus to avoid extradition must exhaust available state remedies, even in the asylum state, unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
• Stuart v. Bomar
  261 F.2d 274· 6th Cir.· 1958-11-13 ·cited 4×
  The Court of Appeals denied the petitioner's motions and application for a certificate of probable cause, finding it lacks authority to grant an appeal from a District Court final judgment.
• United States ex rel. Jack Randolph v. Dowd
  259 F.2d 761· 7th Cir.· 1958-10-10 ·cited 4×
• The People of the United States ex rel. Earl Henry Turnbaugh v. Bibb
  252 F.2d 217· 7th Cir.· 1958-02-18 ·cited 4×
  The Illinois Sexual Psychopath Act does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and the District Court properly dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• United States ex rel. Frank Luzzi v. Banmiller
  248 F.2d 303· 3d Cir.· 1957-09-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's denial of the federal habeas corpus petition was soundly supported by the record, particularly regarding the alleged prejudiced juror.
• Pearson v. Gray
  243 F.2d 23· 6th Cir.· 1957-04-24 ·cited 4×
  The federal court denied habeas corpus relief because the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies and did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying federal intervention.
• United States v. Ragen
  241 F.2d 318· 7th Cir.· 1957-02-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the District Court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition was proper because the relator had not yet exhausted state remedies, especially in light of a new Illinois Supreme Court rule providing a mechanism to obtain a transcript.
• Elbert Riddle v. McLEOD
  240 F.2d 206· 10th Cir.· 1957-01-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate grounds for reversal of the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• United States ex rel. Nelson Rhyce v. Cummings
  233 F.2d 190· 2d Cir.· 1956-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that due process did not require the assignment of counsel to a competent defendant who knowingly and voluntarily waived that right, even in light of his history of mental illness.
• Bowman v. Alvis
  229 F.2d 730· 6th Cir.· 1955-02-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Ohio's Supreme Court Rules do not provide an adequate remedy for indigent prisoners to appeal, thus granting a certificate of probable cause for a federal habeas corpus appeal.
• Baker v. Ellis
  204 F.2d 353· 5th Cir.· 1953-05-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that formal court records showing a defendant appeared with counsel are controlling in a collateral attack, and a discrepancy in the appointed counsel's name does not warrant release.
• United States ex rel. MacBLAIN v. Burke
  200 F.2d 616· 3d Cir.· 1952-12-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding denial of parole opportunity and illegal sentence aggregation are not grounds for habeas corpus relief because he had available state remedies and his parole violation would result in serving the same sentence.
• Porch v. Cagle
  199 F.2d 865· 5th Cir.· 1952-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a federal court cannot grant habeas corpus relief unless state remedies have been exhausted, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate such exhaustion.
• Willis v. Utecht
  185 F.2d 210· 8th Cir.· 1950-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that applicants had not exhausted their state remedies because they failed to follow the proper procedural steps for seeking a writ of habeas corpus in Minnesota courts.
• Cooper v. Cranor
  182 F.2d 256· 9th Cir.· 1950-05-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the applicant failed to exhaust his state remedies by not seeking certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court after his state habeas petition was denied.
• Tucker v. Howard
  177 F.2d 494· 7th Cir.· 1949-10-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying petitions for writs of habeas corpus, especially given the contradictory testimony.
• Miller v. Hudspeth
  176 F.2d 111· 10th Cir.· 1949-07-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus petition and did not abuse its discretion in considering the case on its merits, finding no constitutional violation.
• Commack v. Bush
  175 F.2d 128· 6th Cir.· 1949-06-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant failed to exhaust state remedies and his petition for habeas corpus did not state a cause of action.
• Mart v. Lainson
  169 F.2d 1016· 8th Cir.· 1948-09-27 ·cited 4×
  Federal courts will not ordinarily re-examine questions adjudicated on the merits by state courts, even after exhaustion of state remedies, unless exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency are shown.
• United States ex rel. Ross v. Nierstheimier
  159 F.2d 994· 7th Cir.· 1947-01-17 ·cited 4×
  A petitioner must exhaust state remedies, including seeking certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, before a federal court can grant habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. McCARTHY v. Ragen
  153 F.2d 609· 7th Cir.· 1946-02-20 ·cited 4×
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner has not exhausted all available state court remedies.
• Mason v. Smith
  148 F.2d 894· 9th Cir.· 1945-04-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's application for a certificate of probable cause was properly denied because the issue had already been adjudicated and state remedies were not exhausted.
• Lawrence Print Works, Inc. v. Lynch
  146 F.2d 996· 1st Cir.· 1945-01-29 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that federal courts should not interfere with state fiscal operations, especially when adequate state remedies exist.
• United States ex rel. Johnston v. Carey
  141 F.2d 967· 7th Cir.· 1944-04-17 ·cited 4×
  A federal court will not entertain a habeas corpus petition from a state prisoner until all state remedies have been exhausted, absent exceptional circumstances.
• Jones v. McNeil
  776 F. Supp. 2d 1323· S.D. Fla.· 2011-03-07 ·cited 3×
  The court denied the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, finding that the claims were either procedurally barred, meritless, or not contrary to clearly established federal law.
• Duckett v. McDonough
  701 F. Supp. 2d 1245· M.D. Fla.· 2010-03-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims lacked merit and the petition for writ of habeas corpus would be denied.
• Guzman v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  698 F. Supp. 2d 1317· M.D. Fla.· 2010-03-17 ·cited 3×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the petition for habeas corpus relief, finding merit in Giglio and Brady claims regarding false testimony and withholding of evidence.
• Grossman v. Crosby
  359 F. Supp. 2d 1233· M.D. Fla.· 2005-01-31 ·cited 3×
  The court denied Petitioner Martin E. Grossman's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Bensch v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  952 F. Supp. 790· S.D. Fla.· 1996-12-16 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the inverse condemnation claim (Count II) was not ripe because plaintiffs failed to exhaust state remedies, and the trespass claim (Count III) was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The court denied the motion to drop parties, but encouraged future motions to a
• Reilly v. Florida
  847 F. Supp. 951· M.D. Fla.· 1994-03-31 ·cited 3×
  The court denied Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus, finding his claims regarding the constitutionality of Florida statutes, double jeopardy, sufficiency of evidence, right to self-representation, and state sentencing procedures lacked merit or were not reviewable.
• Campbell v. Blodgett
  997 F.2d 512· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-24 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the third federal habeas petition as successive and abusive, with the exception of the claim regarding appellate review, which was improperly characterized by the district court.
• Schlup v. Armontrout
  945 F.2d 1062· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-09 ·cited 3×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc. The dissenting judges argued that the death penalty was imposed arbitrarily, violating constitutional requirements.
• Norton v. Parke
  892 F.2d 476· 6th Cir.· 1989-12-22 ·cited 3×
  A prisoner must formally invoke the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Davis v. Dugger
  703 F. Supp. 916· M.D. Fla.· 1988-12-23 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a claim not fairly presented to state courts, even if the state waives the exhaustion defense, may be dismissed if it requires judicial findings of fact and would violate comity and federalism principles.
• Rappsodi R. ALI v. State
  777 F.2d 1489· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-11 ·cited 3×
  A federal habeas corpus petition must be dismissed if the petitioner has failed to exhaust available state remedies, and remand is futile if the state asserts exhaustion as a defense.
• Williams v. Wainwright
  39 C.C.A. 491· S.D. Fla.· 1984-01-12 ·cited 3×
  A habeas petitioner must present the substance of a federal constitutional claim to the state courts, including the factual and legal premises, to satisfy the exhaustion requirement.
• Arango v. Louie L. Wainwright
  716 F.2d 1353· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the federal habeas corpus proceeding should be held in abeyance pending exhaustion of state court remedies to promote judicial economy.
• Shears v. Israel
  712 F.2d 1220· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed unless the petitioner amends the petition to delete the unexhausted claims.
• Montague v. Vinzant
  643 F.2d 657· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-23 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the distinction between pending and decided cases for applying a new drug classification law was rationally based and did not violate equal protection. It also held that the prosecutor lacked discretion to charge the defendant under a different statute.
• Manning v. State OF Ala.
  526 F.2d 355· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-22 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the petitioner must exhaust available state remedies before a federal court can consider his claim for credit on his state sentence for time served in federal custody.
• McBRIDE v. Estelle
  507 F.2d 903· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-07 ·cited 3×
  The court held that while McBride's pro se brief satisfied the jurisdictional requirements for federal habeas corpus review, the district court's dismissal is affirmed on grounds of comity.
• Shank v. Smith
  426 F.2d 1344· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-02 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court properly denied claims of illegal extradition and lack of jurisdiction, but erred in denying claims of denial of counsel and coerced guilty plea without proper procedure.
• Vern Wilmer Carpenter v. Beto
  421 F.2d 847· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-29 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a state convict must re-present issues to the Texas court under the amended Article 11.07 before being considered to have exhausted available state remedies.