Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• The Nat'l Ass'n OF Naturopathic Physicians v. The Cal. State Bd. OF Chiropractic Exam'rs
  442 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-11
  The court held that the appellant's suit was premature because it had not first sought relief in the California state courts.
• Sutton v. Jones
  443 F.2d 69· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-11
  The appeal from the denial of injunctive relief is moot because the appellant has since been convicted of the robbery charge.
• Howard v. Swenson
  441 F.2d 256· 8th Cir.· 1971-04-15
  A state prisoner must exhaust state remedies for claims regarding conditions of confinement before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Cochran v. Rodriguez
  438 F.2d 926· 10th Cir.· 1971-02-26
  The court held that it was error to dismiss the habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies when the petitioner had already raised the same issues on direct appeal.
• Kanan v. Denver Dist. Court
  438 F.2d 521· 10th Cir.· 1971-02-26
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by wilfully bypassing them, thus the district court properly denied relief.
• Little v. State OF Ga.
  438 F.2d 536· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-25
  The appeal is dismissed because the appellant has been granted parole and has failed to prosecute the appeal.
• Linehan v. State OF Minn.
  437 F.2d 395· 8th Cir.· 1971-02-09
  A guilty plea based on reasonably competent advice is intelligent and not open to attack due to counsel's misjudgment on confession admissibility.
• Smith v. State of Tex.
  434 F.2d 1013· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-24
  The court held that the petitioner's claim regarding the search warrant was barred by non-retroactivity of Aguilar, and his claim regarding execution of the warrant must first be exhausted in state court.
• Fleury v. Supreme Court OF NEW Hampshire & Parker L. Hancock
  432 F.2d 555· 1st Cir.· 1970-10-13
  The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was untimely because he had not exhausted his state remedies, specifically by utilizing the state's post-conviction procedure.
• Stacy v. van Curen
  432 F.2d 970· 6th Cir.· 1970-10-12
  The court held that the appellant effectively waived his constitutional right to be prosecuted by indictment when he voluntarily pleaded guilty to a different offense with the advice of counsel, thus precluding federal habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Samuel Brown v. Mr. Edward J. Hendrick
  431 F.2d 436· 3d Cir.· 1970-09-22
  A conviction for rape does not violate the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, even if the defendant was previously convicted of open lewdness arising from the same incident, because the offenses have different essential elements.
• Heisler v. COX
  431 F.2d 581· 4th Cir.· 1970-09-14
  A federal habeas corpus court must hold a hearing if the state court failed to make explicit findings of fact or if the findings cannot be reconstructed from the record.
• Tanksley v. Warden State Penitentiary OF the State OF Colo.
  429 F.2d 1308· 10th Cir.· 1970-08-27
  The court held that the federal district court correctly dismissed the habeas petition because the petitioner had not exhausted his available state remedies.
• Brown v. Peterson
  429 F.2d 585· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-12
  The court held that the appeal was moot due to subsequent developments in the petitioner's case.
• Application of Raymond C. Nielson for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
  430 F.2d 1030· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-04
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies and had deliberately bypassed available state appellate review, thus precluding federal habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Michael Williams v. McMANN
  430 F.2d 1284· 2d Cir.· 1970-07-24
  The court held that the appeal from the denial of the habeas corpus petition should be dismissed because the petitioner failed to comply with local rules regarding disclosure of prior petitions.
• Kanieski v. Gagnon
  427 F.2d 401· 7th Cir.· 1970-06-09
  The court held that the District Court properly denied the petition for habeas corpus because the state court offered a remedy that satisfied federal constitutional requirements for appeal review.
• Jethro Bolton v. Nelson
  426 F.2d 807· 9th Cir.· 1970-05-18
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding his confession, ineffective counsel, and witness cross-examination did not warrant federal relief.
• United States ex rel. Henry L. Ford v. Pate
  425 F.2d 178· 7th Cir.· 1970-05-07
  The court held that the pretrial identification procedures were not so unnecessarily suggestive as to violate due process, and any hearsay testimony was harmless error.
• United States ex rel. Frank Powell v. Commonwealth of Pa.
  425 F.2d 267· 3d Cir.· 1970-04-24
  The court held that the district court lacked the power to grant an untimely nunc pro tunc appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed.
• Eules Ezekiel Stanley v. Pitchess
  425 F.2d 192· 9th Cir.· 1970-04-17
  The court affirmed the denial of a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the state prisoner validly waived his right to counsel and was not denied effective assistance or a fair trial.
• Linnus Harrison v. Louie L. Wainwright
  424 F.2d 633· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-13
  The court held that a federal court may deny a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner has failed to exhaust state remedies for all issues raised.
• Trask v. Robbins
  421 F.2d 773· 1st Cir.· 1970-02-24
  The court held that the hospital room identification, under the totality of the circumstances, was not so unnecessarily suggestive as to violate due process, even without counsel present.
• United States ex rel. Norman A. Green v. Maroney
  421 F.2d 830· 3d Cir.· 1970-01-15
  The district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the appellant has not exhausted his state remedies.
• Hegwood v. Swenson
  417 F.2d 310· 8th Cir.· 1969-10-30
  The court held that the federal district court properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies under the amended Missouri Rule 27.26.
• United States ex rel. Joseph Maniscalco v. LaVALLEE
  417 F.2d 1056· 2d Cir.· 1969-10-21
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel and affirmed the dismissal of his habeas corpus application.
• Lynch v. Field
  415 F.2d 776· 9th Cir.· 1969-09-05
• Pagnotta v. Heyd
  415 F.2d 766· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-27
  The court held that the district court never had the opportunity to rule on the merits of the habeas petition, thus appellate review was not yet possible.
• Young v. McGEE
  415 F.2d 473· 9th Cir.· 1969-08-22
  The court held that the prisoner's complaint was properly dismissed because it failed to state a claim for damages and improperly attempted to circumvent habeas corpus procedures.
• Swan v. Young
  413 F.2d 991· 8th Cir.· 1969-07-10
  The federal district courts correctly denied relief because the prisoners failed to exhaust their state remedies.
• Cranston Carr v. Simpson
  412 F.2d 838· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-05
  A federal district court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus if state remedies are unexhausted, but may hold the application in abeyance.
• Maisonave v. Louie L. Wainwright
  411 F.2d 1014· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-27
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the petition for habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing.
• Murray v. Commonwealth OF Pa.
  408 F.2d 498· 3d Cir.· 1969-03-06
  The court held that the district court properly denied the appellant's petition, as he failed to exhaust state remedies and delays were caused by his own requests.
• Gant v. Kropp
  407 F.2d 776· 6th Cir.· 1969-03-05
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the petitions for writs of habeas corpus, affirming the judgments of conviction.
• Summers v. Beto
  403 F.2d 712· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-06
  The court held that the petitioner was entitled to an out-of-time appeal for one conviction but not the other.
• United States ex rel. Kobert Davis v. Maroney
  400 F.2d 85· 3d Cir.· 1968-09-09
  The judgment of the district court denying the writ of habeas corpus is affirmed because the petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies.
• Eldridge v. Crouse
  400 F.2d 94· 10th Cir.· 1968-08-23
  The court held that the appellant must exhaust state post-conviction remedies before pursuing federal habeas corpus relief.
• Carmine DiPAOLO, Jr. v. Yeager
  399 F.2d 72· 3d Cir.· 1968-08-12
  The court held that the trial judge's charge, stating his finding that the confession was voluntary, did not warrant interference with the conviction, despite a preferable procedure outlined in later case law.
• Smith v. Wilson
  398 F.2d 315· 9th Cir.· 1968-07-10
  The court held that the state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied because he failed to exhaust state remedies for one ground and the other ground was without merit.
• Henderson v. Dutton
  397 F.2d 375· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-24
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted available state remedies under the new Georgia Habeas Corpus Act of 1967, requiring further evidentiary hearings in state court.
• United States ex rel. Shaykh Muhammad Ali Hasan v. Gernert
  395 F.2d 193· 3d Cir.· 1968-05-07
  A state prisoner is entitled to a federal habeas corpus hearing if state corrective processes are unavailable or ineffective, even if appeals were untimely due to circumstances beyond the prisoner's control.
• United States ex rel. James Whiting v. Rundle
  389 F.2d 47· 3d Cir.· 1968-02-07
• Anders v. Eyman
  388 F.2d 550· 9th Cir.· 1968-01-05
  The court held that federal habeas corpus relief is not available when state prisoners have not first attempted to seek post-conviction relief in state courts.
• Shear v. Otto C. Boles
  391 F.2d 609· 4th Cir.· 1967-10-05
  The court held that increasing a prisoner's sentence after a retrial violates constitutional guarantees.
• Benny P. Martinez v. Patterson
  382 F.2d 1002· 10th Cir.· 1967-10-04
  The federal court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition because the state prisoner had not exhausted his available state court remedies.
• Lembke v. Field
  380 F.2d 383· 9th Cir.· 1967-06-28
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• James v. Breckenridge
  374 F.2d 857· 10th Cir.· 1967-03-09
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies, as habeas corpus was not the proper procedure in Colorado for the issues raised.
• Tshaka Zekelkeyzula v. Patterson
  373 F.2d 522· 10th Cir.· 1967-03-01
  A habeas corpus petition alleging a coerced guilty plea based on a subjective belief in a plea deal, even if no actual deal existed, is sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing.
• The Monongahela Connecting R.R. Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n & George I. Bloom
  373 F.2d 142· 3d Cir.· 1967-02-14
  The court held that the hot metal movement is not subject to the Federal Safety Appliance Act and remains under state regulation, while the Talbot movement is subject to the Act.
• Herring v. Rodriguez
  372 F.2d 470· 10th Cir.· 1967-02-08
  The court held that the dismissal of the federal habeas corpus petition without prejudice was not erroneous because the appellant had failed to exhaust his available state remedies.