Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Ashley v. State OF Cal.
  397 F.2d 270· 9th Cir.· 1968-07-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant must first seek relief in state courts regarding the potential constitutional issues raised by recent Supreme Court decisions.
• Holloway v. Dutton
  396 F.2d 127· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a habeas corpus petition without a hearing, as the petitioner's allegations were sufficient to warrant one.
• Sutherland v. Louie L. Wainwright
  399 F.2d 303· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the District Court did not err in denying a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing, as state remedies were not exhausted for one claim and another claim was already decided by state courts.
• Fisherman v. Achuff
  392 F.2d 587· 9th Cir.· 1968-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority's suggestions to the district court regarding state relief are unnecessary and potentially exceed constitutional powers.
• Royal v. Dutton
  392 F.2d 544· 5th Cir.· 1968-03-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by not ruling on the allegation of coerced perjured testimony and remanded for further proceedings.
• Reison Gray v. Wingo
  391 F.2d 268· 6th Cir.· 1967-08-22 ·cited 2×
• Weigand v. Wingo
  380 F.2d 1022· 6th Cir.· 1967-07-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a petition for rehearing on an appeal from a probation revocation does not constitute exhaustion of state remedies for post-conviction relief.
• Strowder v. Shovlin
  380 F.2d 370· 3d Cir.· 1967-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's arguments regarding his conviction were without merit and that he had not exhausted state remedies for his commitment proceedings.
• Burns v. State OF Ala.
  377 F.2d 233· 5th Cir.· 1967-05-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the record did not establish as a matter of law that the appellant had failed to exhaust state remedies, as the timing of his appeal notice relative to the ten-day transcript request period was unclear.
• Case v. Crouse
  376 F.2d 586· 10th Cir.· 1967-04-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prisoner's claims did not warrant an evidentiary hearing and that the allegations, even if true, did not establish a right to release.
• Walter v. Louie L. Wainwright
  373 F.2d 322· 5th Cir.· 1967-02-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a hearing should have been granted on both the petitioner's claim of a coerced confession and his claim of ineffective counsel for failure to advise him of his right to appeal.
• Oughton v. Taylor
  381 F.2d 23· 10th Cir.· 1967-01-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prisoner's appeal is not moot and has not been abandoned, despite his transfer to a different penitentiary.
• Buchanan v. The State OF Okla.
  370 F.2d 199· 10th Cir.· 1966-12-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant was not deprived of his constitutional right to appeal because his retained counsel represented him when the appeal deadline expired and beyond, and the state courts' interpretation of appeal statutes was consistent.
• Alton M. Thomas v. Page
  368 F.2d 180· 10th Cir.· 1966-10-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's constitutional arguments regarding sentencing were without substance and that the state statute was uniformly applied.
• Skipper v. Shovlin
  368 F.2d 954· 3d Cir.· 1966-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the petition solely on the grounds of failure to exhaust state remedies without determining if those remedies were applicable to the specific due process claims raised.
• Oliver v. State OF Cal.
  364 F.2d 311· 9th Cir.· 1966-07-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were not retroactively applicable under Escobedo, and thus the district court properly denied his habeas corpus petition.
• Armstrong v. Haskins
  363 F.2d 429· 6th Cir.· 1966-07-20 ·cited 2×
  The federal court declined to rule on the habeas corpus application because the Ohio state courts had not yet had an opportunity to address the specific issues raised.
• Davis v. Crouse
  363 F.2d 382· 10th Cir.· 1966-07-18 ·cited 2×
  A federal court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing if the petitioner has not exhausted available state remedies.
• Fleming v. Klinger
  363 F.2d 378· 9th Cir.· 1966-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prisoner's claims regarding his sentences and prior interrogation were without merit and that he had failed to exhaust state remedies.
• Crawford v. Bailey
  360 F.2d 596· 4th Cir.· 1966-05-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the amended petition should have been treated as a supplemental pleading, allowing incorporation of prior allegations.
• Blair v. Crouse
  360 F.2d 28· 10th Cir.· 1966-04-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a state prisoner must exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Naillieux v. Crouse
  356 F.2d 499· 10th Cir.· 1966-02-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal order lacked specificity for appellate review and remanded for further proceedings.
• Maghe v. The State OF Okla.
  356 F.2d 644· 10th Cir.· 1966-02-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the case should be remanded to the district court to determine if an adequate state remedy now exists for the petitioner's claims, particularly in light of new state legislation.
• Miller v. Blalock
  356 F.2d 273· 4th Cir.· 1966-02-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing on the validity of his original commitment, as indefinite confinement without notice or hearing violates due process.
• Whitley v. State OF N.C.
  357 F.2d 75· 4th Cir.· 1966-02-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the District Court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, as the state court had already considered the petitioner's constitutional claims.
• Joie Silva v. Klinger
  355 F.2d 657· 9th Cir.· 1966-02-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies regarding the claimed loss of memory issue.
• United States ex rel. Floyd C. Frierson v. Pate
  354 F.2d 588· 7th Cir.· 1965-12-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court should abstain from exercising habeas corpus jurisdiction pending state court disposition of the arrest warrant's validity, and affirmed the dismissal on that basis.
• Ferrario v. The State OF Neb.
  352 F.2d 620· 8th Cir.· 1965-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies and that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction over his claims.
• Holley v. Cheuvront
  351 F.2d 615· 9th Cir.· 1965-10-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the petition against the clerk and denied it against the warden because the state prisoner had not exhausted his state court remedies.
• Hillegas v. Sams
  349 F.2d 859· 5th Cir.· 1965-08-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that deliberate, purposeful use of state criminal machinery to deny constitutional rights constitutes an "extraordinary" case justifying pre-trial federal habeas relief, despite prior rulings to the contrary.
• Russell v. Maxwell
  348 F.2d 908· 6th Cir.· 1965-07-22 ·cited 2×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to grant habeas corpus relief until state remedies are exhausted.
• Nelson v. Tahash
  347 F.2d 500· 8th Cir.· 1965-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant has not exhausted his state remedies because the Minnesota Supreme Court indicated it would consider the validity of the Delaware conviction in light of Gideon v. Wainwright.
• United States ex rel. James T. Stevens v. McCLOSKEY
  345 F.2d 305· 2d Cir.· 1965-05-11 ·cited 2×
  A witness cannot refuse to testify before a grand jury by challenging the validity of a waiver of immunity; such challenges are premature and must await a subsequent prosecution.
• Webb v. Peyton
  345 F.2d 521· 4th Cir.· 1965-05-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in discharging the prisoner without requiring further state court proceedings due to exceptional circumstances.
• Brown v. State OF N.C.
  341 F.2d 87· 4th Cir.· 1965-01-14 ·cited 2×
  The petitioner has not exhausted his available state remedies and therefore his federal habeas corpus petition was properly denied.
• Pruitt v. Peyton
  338 F.2d 859· 4th Cir.· 1964-11-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prisoner may be entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine if he knowingly and understandingly abandoned or deliberately bypassed state court remedies.
• Schnepp v. State OF Or. & United States
  333 F.2d 288· 9th Cir.· 1964-06-09 ·cited 2×
  The judgment dismissing the application for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed because the warden was not named respondent and state remedies were not exhausted.
• Mitchell v. Henslee
  332 F.2d 16· 8th Cir.· 1964-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding that the appellant waived his constitutional claims by failing to raise them on direct appeal, as waiver requires an intentional relinquishment of a known right.
• Dilworth v. Sigler
  325 F.2d 396· 8th Cir.· 1963-12-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court must reconsider the habeas corpus application in light of Fay v. Noia, particularly if no state remedy is available.
• Kurth v. Honorable Roy L. Stephenson and Honorable Edward J. McManus
  323 F.2d 997· 8th Cir.· 1963-11-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his available state remedies, and thus the federal court was not required to grant a hearing on his habeas corpus petition.
• Stubbs v. Bomar
  321 F.2d 535· 6th Cir.· 1963-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the federal district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner failed to exhaust his available state remedies.
• Rainsberger v. Lamb
  313 F.2d 195· 9th Cir.· 1963-01-28 ·cited 2×
  The federal court properly denied the petition for habeas corpus because the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies.
• United States ex rel. Loring J. Whiteside v. Slavin
  309 F.2d 322· 2d Cir.· 1962-10-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable to the petitioner because he has not exhausted his state remedies.
• United States ex rel. Chester R. Blanton v. Whelchel
  308 F.2d 586· 7th Cir.· 1962-10-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied equal protection by being quarantined during the period for filing a new trial motion, and that the issue regarding the Public Defender's refusal to assist with an appeal was not properly raised in the District Court.
• United States ex rel. Paul Pierce and Donald Joseph v. Ward Lane
  302 F.2d 38· 7th Cir.· 1962-04-24 ·cited 2×
• Mesmer v. Raines
  298 F.2d 718· 10th Cir.· 1961-12-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal courts should not entertain habeas corpus claims that have not been presented to state courts, especially when the issue involves state law.
• United States ex rel. Frank Cutrone v. FAY
  289 F.2d 470· 2d Cir.· 1961-04-28 ·cited 2×
  A state prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief based on a state conviction used for increased punishment must first exhaust available state remedies to challenge that conviction and its classification as a felony under the sentencing state's law.
• Williams v. Moore
  285 F.2d 590· 5th Cir.· 1961-01-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's findings that the confession was voluntary and counsel was not ineffective were supported by the record.
• Player v. Steiner
  284 F.2d 306· 4th Cir.· 1960-11-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prisoner had not exhausted state remedies and the appeal should be dismissed for want of a certificate of probable cause.
• Sullivan v. Dickson
  283 F.2d 725· 9th Cir.· 1960-10-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the requested relief, compelling a non-party to produce documents, was not available in the current proceeding, which was not a pending action for habeas corpus.