Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Bufalino v. Reno
  613 F.2d 568· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-13 ·cited 32×
  A federal court should dismiss a habeas petition containing only unexhausted claims, even if the district court erroneously reached the merits, to allow the state courts the first opportunity to address the claims.
• John v. Carothers
  594 F.2d 225· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition if any claim presented has not been exhausted in state courts, but may review the merits of exhausted claims. The court affirmed dismissal of the alibi instruction claim for failure to exhaust state remedie
• Reimer v. Short
  578 F.2d 621· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-21 ·cited 32×
• Finis Smith Blankenship v. Estelle
  545 F.2d 510· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of other crimes evidence did not violate due process because a strong link was established between the defendant and the other offenses, satisfying the fundamental fairness standard.
• Collin L. Johnson v. Copinger
  420 F.2d 395· 4th Cir.· 1969-12-18 ·cited 32×
  A district court may not dismiss a habeas corpus petition for abuse of the writ without first notifying the petitioner and affording them an opportunity to explain any prior omissions.
• Milton v. Louie L. Wainwright
  396 F.2d 214· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-05 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief because the appellant had not exhausted available state post-conviction remedies.
• Bruce v. Beto
  396 F.2d 212· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-27 ·cited 32×
• Coley v. Alvis
  381 F.2d 870· 6th Cir.· 1967-09-06 ·cited 32×
  The court held that because the Ohio post-conviction relief statute, as construed by the Ohio Supreme Court, provides no effective state remedy for the appellant's claims, he is not required to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Watson v. Patterson
  358 F.2d 297· 10th Cir.· 1966-03-25 ·cited 32×
  The trial court improperly considered issues not previously presented to state courts, but the denial of the writ is affirmed because the prisoner has not exhausted state remedies for those issues.
• Morehead v. State OF Cal.
  339 F.2d 170· 9th Cir.· 1964-11-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a federal court cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner has not exhausted available state remedies, unless those remedies are unavailable or ineffective.
• United States ex rel. Alvin R. Drew v. Myers
  327 F.2d 174· 3d Cir.· 1964-01-23 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, not on the merits of the due process claims, but on the grounds that the petitioner failed to exhaust available state remedies regarding the cumulative effect of the alleged errors.
• United States ex rel. Donald Tillery v. Cavell
  294 F.2d 12· 3d Cir.· 1961-07-18 ·cited 32×
  State officers are not required to obtain a certificate of probable cause to appeal a federal habeas corpus decision concerning state custody.
• GAY v. Marcell Graham
  269 F.2d 482· 10th Cir.· 1959-07-29 ·cited 32×
  The court held that petitioners failed to demonstrate a substantial question regarding a denial of due process, and thus a certificate of probable cause should be denied.
• United States ex rel. Oliver S. Smith v. Jackson
  234 F.2d 742· 2d Cir.· 1956-05-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a state court's gratuitous opinion on the merits, after denying jurisdiction, does not bar federal review. Denial of certiorari also counts as exhaustion of state remedies.
• Melanson v. O'Brien
  191 F.2d 963· 1st Cir.· 1951-10-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the petitioner was denied procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by being forced to trial without adequate opportunity to secure counsel of his choice.
• Schechtman v. Foster
  172 F.2d 339· 2d Cir.· 1949-02-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a federal court will not ordinarily reexamine questions adjudicated by state courts, especially when the Supreme Court has denied certiorari, and that due process does not guarantee an infallible legal process.
• Russell v. Rolfs
  893 F.2d 1033· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-09 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the state is estopped from arguing procedural default because it previously represented to the federal court that an adequate and available state remedy existed, which contradicted its later argument that the petitioner was procedurally barred in state court.
• Thad D. Lowe v. Letsinger
  772 F.2d 308· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-29 ·cited 31×
  Judges are absolutely immune for judicial acts, including delays in ruling and decisions regarding notice. Clerks performing ministerial duties are not absolutely immune. The Attorney General is not liable without knowledge of the concealed judgment.
• Schwartzmiller v. Darrol Gardner
  752 F.2d 1341· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-20 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant's conduct, but reversed the district court's finding of facial vagueness.
• Henson v. Estelle
  641 F.2d 250· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-30 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a habeas petitioner's claims regarding a 1960 conviction were barred by Rule 9(a) due to prejudicial delay, but the 1948 conviction required an evidentiary hearing.
• Delaney v. Giarrusso
  633 F.2d 1126· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-05 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the illegal arrest claim requires exhaustion of state remedies, while the excessive force claim can proceed on the merits. The judgment dismissing the excessive force claim is affirmed, and the illegal arrest claim is vacated and remanded.
• Huynh THI ANH and Dao Thanh Linh v. Levi
  586 F.2d 625· 6th Cir.· 1978-10-20 ·cited 31×
  Federal courts should not assert jurisdiction over child custody disputes, even involving aliens, as these matters fall within the traditional purview of state courts and require exhaustion of state remedies.
• Fain v. Duff
  488 F.2d 218· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-07 ·cited 31×
  The court's denial of rehearing en banc is dissented from, arguing the majority opinion improperly uses habeas corpus to prelitigate constitutional defenses in state criminal prosecutions.
• Mosley v. Officer M.D. Cozby
  813 F.2d 659· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to reconsider did not clearly evince an intent to appeal, thus there was no effective notice of appeal.
• Nash v. Israel
  707 F.2d 298· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a guilty plea is invalid if the trial court fails to establish on the record that the defendant understood the elements of the charge, particularly when the defendant explicitly states confusion.
• Williams v. Holbrook
  691 F.2d 3· 1st Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioner had sufficiently presented her sixth amendment claims to the state courts, satisfying the exhaustion requirement, and that her escape did not constitute an abuse of the writ warranting dismissal.
• United States v. Franzen
  669 F.2d 433· 7th Cir.· 1982-01-12 ·cited 30×
  Federal courts cannot entertain state law claims in habeas corpus proceedings, as the habeas corpus statutes are limited to violations of federal law. Pendent jurisdiction does not extend to state law claims in this context.
• Powell v. Wyrick
  657 F.2d 222· 8th Cir.· 1981-08-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a petitioner is not required to pursue a discretionary state remedy under Mo.R.Civ.P. 84.08 if such pursuit would be futile.
• Hilary Davis v. Page
  618 F.2d 374· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-06 ·cited 30×
• Cameron v. Fastoff
  543 F.2d 971· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that petitioners failed to exhaust state remedies for their federal constitutional claims, but affirmed the dismissal on the merits for the claim regarding probable cause for the search warrants.
• Haefeli v. Chernoff
  526 F.2d 1314· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the automobile was permissible under the automobile exception due to exigent circumstances and probable cause, and that the subsequent search warrant for the apartment was validly issued based on sufficient probable cause.
• Bradford v. Weinstein
  519 F.2d 728· 4th Cir.· 1974-11-22 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge holds that state prisoners challenging parole procedures must first exhaust state remedies and then pursue habeas corpus, not a § 1983 action.
• Jasper Roberson v. State OF Conn.
  501 F.2d 305· 2d Cir.· 1974-07-31 ·cited 30×
  The court did not issue a holding as this is a concurring and dissenting opinion.
• United States ex rel. James Allum v. Twomey
  484 F.2d 740· 7th Cir.· 1973-08-20 ·cited 30×
  A deliberate tactical decision by competent counsel not to object to the admission of evidence at trial can waive the client's right to claim constitutional error, even if the decision was an oversight by counsel.
• Tyler v. Swenson
  483 F.2d 611· 8th Cir.· 1973-08-15 ·cited 30×
  District courts are required to consider exhausted claims in a habeas petition even if other unrelated claims within the same petition are unexhausted.
• Pac. Mar. Ass'n & Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Unions v. Quinn
  465 F.2d 108· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-30 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the federal Act requires only modest deference to state proceedings, not supervision of their effectiveness, and state termination of proceedings, even if perfunctory, satisfies the federal requirement.
• Leavitt v. Howard
  462 F.2d 992· 1st Cir.· 1972-05-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in disregarding the state court's findings of fact regarding consent to search, as the state court's findings were supported by the record and no statutory exceptions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) were met.
• Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright
  452 F.2d 775· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioner had sufficiently exhausted state remedies because the Florida Supreme Court's limited jurisdiction offered no practical avenue for review of his claims.
• Solomon Feldman, Jr. v. State Bd. OF LAW Exam'rs
  438 F.2d 699· 8th Cir.· 1971-03-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a federal court cannot review the grading of bar examination papers or grant injunctive relief for alleged grading errors or discrimination, as such matters must first be addressed by the state's highest court.
• Hill v. City OF EL Paso
  437 F.2d 352· 5th Cir.· 1971-01-05 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that federal courts should abstain from deciding a constitutional challenge to a local ordinance when state courts can resolve the underlying state law issues, and that federal courts are generally prohibited from enjoining pending state
• Meller v. State OF Mo.
  431 F.2d 120· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant's 1952 guilty plea and waiver of counsel were voluntary and intelligent, and that the Boykin v. Alabama decision should not be applied retroactively.
• Emmitt Monroe Spencer v. Wainwright
  403 F.2d 778· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the federal district court erred in denying the petition for habeas corpus because the petitioner had not exhausted his available state remedies.
• Welch v. Beto
  400 F.2d 582· 5th Cir.· 1968-08-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a federal district court must make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in habeas corpus proceedings.
• Hill v. Beto
  390 F.2d 640· 5th Cir.· 1968-02-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that conviction by a state for robbery after a federal conviction for the same act does not constitute double jeopardy.
• United States ex rel. Rudolph E. Boyance v. Myers
  372 F.2d 111· 3d Cir.· 1967-02-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a prisoner's claim of illegal search and seizure, which had been fully considered and rejected by state courts, was exhausted, even if another claim remained pending in state court.
• United States ex rel. Granville Boodie v. Herold
  349 F.2d 372· 2d Cir.· 1965-08-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the federal district court erred in denying the petition without requiring exhaustion of state remedies, as the state courts had not considered the full record regarding counsel's availability.
• United States ex rel. Frank Brown v. Smith
  306 F.2d 596· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-17 ·cited 30×
• Huey R. LEE, Jr. v. Wiman
  280 F.2d 257· 5th Cir.· 1960-06-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court was not required to entertain the habeas corpus application because the state court records showed the applicant was not denied due process of law.
• Latimer v. Cranor
  214 F.2d 926· 9th Cir.· 1954-08-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims did not present a federal question warranting habeas corpus relief, as the alleged violations of constitutional rights were either not applicable to state actions or not sufficiently demonstrated to have affected the trial.
• Johnson v. DYE
  175 F.2d 250· 3d Cir.· 1949-05-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioner was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by the State of Georgia, violating the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore must be discharged from custody.