Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Gruttola v. Hammock
  639 F.2d 922· 2d Cir.· 1981-01-29 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and that the claim regarding prejudicial publicity was procedurally barred.
• Doyle Dewayne Courtney v. Reeves
  635 F.2d 326· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's civil rights claims without proper consideration of the factual allegations and procedural requirements, particularly regarding excessive force and conspiracy claims.
• Schuemann v. Colo. State Bd. OF Adult Parole
  624 F.2d 172· 10th Cir.· 1980-06-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the state parole board's denial of parole was not arbitrary or capricious and did not violate due process, thus affirming the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Gayle v. LeFEVRE
  613 F.2d 21· 2d Cir.· 1980-01-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appellant failed to exhaust state remedies because federal constitutional claims were raised for the first time in federal court, not presented to the state courts.
• Willett v. State OF Ga.
  608 F.2d 538· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-17 ·cited 24×
  A guilty plea entered while protesting innocence is constitutionally invalid unless there is a factual basis for the plea, and the state court must develop facts to support it.
• Drayton v. Hon. John F. Hayes
  589 F.2d 117· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a second trial is not barred by double jeopardy unless the judge's conduct, which led to a mistrial, was motivated by bad faith or caused actual prejudice to the defendant.
• United States ex rel. John Hickey v. Jeffes
  571 F.2d 762· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-13 ·cited 24×
  The district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition on exhaustion grounds, as the issues were presented on direct appeal. One of Hickey's claims for habeas relief is meritorious.
• Lamberti v. Louie L. Wainwright
  513 F.2d 277· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-22 ·cited 24×
  A federal court cannot grant habeas corpus relief on a claim that has not been fairly presented to the state courts, even if another claim in the petition has been exhausted.
• Simpson v. Louie L. Wainwright
  488 F.2d 494· 5th Cir.· 1973-11-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in summarily dismissing all claims as an abuse of the Great Writ, but affirmed dismissal of one specific claim.
• Oran Young v. United States
  485 F.2d 292· 8th Cir.· 1973-10-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a motion to vacate a sentence based on allegedly enhanced prior convictions was properly dismissed because the sentencing judge explicitly stated he did not rely on those convictions, and the defendant had not exhausted state remedies for prior state convictio
• Deats v. Rodriguez
  477 F.2d 1023· 10th Cir.· 1973-05-03 ·cited 24×
  The dissenting judge believes the accused waived his Fifth Amendment right by testifying and presenting an alibi, thus his pre-trial silence could be used for impeachment.
• Wilwording v. Swenson
  439 F.2d 1331· 8th Cir.· 1971-03-16 ·cited 24×
  Prisoners must exhaust all available state judicial remedies, including mandamus, prohibition, and injunction, before seeking equitable relief in federal court for conditions of confinement, even if those conditions might be cognizable under federal habeas corpus.
• Davis v. Smith
  430 F.2d 1256· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that systematic exclusion of Negroes from grand and petit juries violated the Constitution, warranting habeas corpus relief, but that the search of the automobile was conducted with probable cause.
• James v. Copinger
  428 F.2d 235· 4th Cir.· 1970-06-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that petitioners must first present their novel constitutional claim, arising from the Supreme Court's decision in North Carolina v. Pearce, to the respective state courts before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, as they failed to exhaust state remedies on this
• Henderson v. Cardwell
  426 F.2d 150· 6th Cir.· 1970-05-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a prisoner's claim of being denied an appeal due to lack of knowledge of his right and counsel's failure to advise him is cognizable in habeas corpus, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
• MacDONALD v. Musick
  425 F.2d 373· 9th Cir.· 1970-04-20 ·cited 24×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority's approach is unrealistic and would affirm the district court's judgment.
• Benoit v. Wingo
  423 F.2d 880· 6th Cir.· 1970-04-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel on his state appeal, entitling him to a review of his conviction or release.
• Whiteley v. Meacham
  416 F.2d 36· 10th Cir.· 1969-09-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies for several claims and that the arrest and search were lawful under pre-Chimel standards, thus affirming the denial of the habeas corpus writ.
• Goins v. Allgood
  391 F.2d 692· 5th Cir.· 1968-03-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in summarily denying the habeas corpus petition without a hearing, as a new ground of systematic exclusion of Negroes from the grand jury was presented. The court found the facts regarding this exclusion undisputed and ordered the peti
• United States ex rel. Joseph Miles Walker v. Fogliani
  343 F.2d 43· 9th Cir.· 1965-03-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained and allowed Nevada state courts the first opportunity to consider the impact of Escobedo v. Illinois on the appellant's conviction.
• Powell v. Wiman
  287 F.2d 275· 5th Cir.· 1961-02-24 ·cited 24×
  A conviction obtained through the knowing use of false evidence, or the failure to correct false evidence, violates due process, even if the falsity pertains only to witness credibility.
• United States v. Jackson
  256 F.2d 7· 2d Cir.· 1958-05-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a confession obtained during a 23-hour detention, without sleep or food, and with evidence of physical abuse, was involuntary and violated due process.
• United States v. Morgan
  202 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1953-02-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a writ of error coram nobis may be available to a prisoner serving a state sentence to challenge a prior federal conviction for lack of counsel, and that a hearing is required to determine if counsel was denied or waived.
• United States ex rel. Master v. Baldi
  198 F.2d 113· 3d Cir.· 1952-07-08 ·cited 24×
  The district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition without a hearing, as the allegations of a coerced confession, if true, constitute a violation of due process.
• United States ex rel. Auld v. Warden of N.J. State Penitentiary
  187 F.2d 615· 3d Cir.· 1951-01-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that Section 2254 of the Judicial Code does not preclude a federal court from dismissing a habeas corpus petition on its merits, even if state remedies have not been exhausted.
• United States ex rel. Foley v. Ragen
  143 F.2d 774· 7th Cir.· 1944-06-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus petition because the relator had not exhausted his available state remedies.
• Landano v. Rafferty
  897 F.2d 661· 3d Cir.· 1990-02-27 ·cited 23×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the petitioner had exhausted his state remedies, arguing that the new evidence did not fundamentally alter the legal claim already considered by the state courts.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Child's. Hosp. Med. Ctr. OF N. Cal.
  719 F.2d 1426· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-08 ·cited 23×
  The EEOC's subpoena must be enforced because it serves a lawful purpose related to the agency's independent authority to prevent employment discrimination.
• Rosanna Drollinger and Nathan Drollinger v. Milligan
  552 F.2d 1220· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-04 ·cited 23×
  Rosanna's challenge to probation conditions must be brought as a habeas corpus petition, requiring exhaustion of state remedies, while Nathan's challenge to conditions affecting his family rights is a valid civil rights claim under § 1983.
• ST. Jules v. Beto
  462 F.2d 1365· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-18 ·cited 23×
  The court held that federal courts may entertain a habeas corpus petition if state courts have unreasonably delayed in acting upon a pending state habeas corpus application.
• United States ex rel. Joseph Annunziato v. Deegan
  440 F.2d 304· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-26 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the imposition of consecutive sentences for perjury was not cruel and unusual punishment, and that testifying falsely after being compelled to waive immunity did not violate the privilege against self-incrimination.
• Hawk v. Olson
  130 F.2d 910· 8th Cir.· 1942-10-19 ·cited 23×
  A federal court should not issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner unless exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency are shown, and the prisoner has exhausted state remedies.
• Hanrahan v. Greer
  896 F.2d 241· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the state waived its right to argue harmless error on appeal by failing to preserve the argument in the district court, and that the defendant's claim regarding judicial corruption did not meet the "fundamental miscarriage of justice" exception to forfeiture.
• Toles v. Mr. C.E. Jones (Warden) & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Ala.
  888 F.2d 95· 11th Cir.· 1989-10-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant procedurally defaulted his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and failed to demonstrate cause or prejudice for the default, thus affirming the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition.
• Mercer v. Armontrout
  864 F.2d 1429· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the petitioner's second habeas petition did not present substantial claims that would undermine the accuracy of his guilt or sentencing determination, thus denying a certificate of probable cause.
• Joseph D. McMAHON P-7814 v. Fulcomer
  821 F.2d 934· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition as mixed, and that the petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel.
• Fetner v. The City OF Roanoke
  813 F.2d 1183· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the plaintiff resigned and because the plaintiff stated a valid procedural due process claim.
• Harper v. Jeffries
  808 F.2d 281· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-31 ·cited 22×
  A federal court should not dismiss a § 1983 damages claim brought concurrently with a habeas corpus petition, even if state remedies for confinement have not been exhausted.
• Hayes v. A.L. Lockhart
  754 F.2d 281· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the prisoner received adequate due process regarding administrative segregation, the district court erred in dismissing the claim for meritorious good time earned in another state.
• Sandstrom v. Butterworth
  738 F.2d 1200· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-13 ·cited 22×
  The majority found that Sandstrom's federal constitutional claim regarding judicial disqualification was exhausted in state courts, but the dissenting judge disagreed.
• Augustin Carbajol v. Fairman
  700 F.2d 397· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's past violent acts did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense, as it did not so hamper his defense as to deny him a fair trial.
• Naranjo v. Ricketts
  696 F.2d 83· 10th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 22×
  A state's waiver of the exhaustion requirement in federal habeas corpus proceedings is not dispositive; federal courts must still ensure exhaustion to uphold comity and the state's role in enforcing federal law.
• Burton v. Bergman
  649 F.2d 428· 6th Cir.· 1981-05-21 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in granting habeas relief based on a single word in jury instructions, as the instructions as a whole were not prejudicial and the conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence.
• Parkhurst v. State OF Wyo.
  641 F.2d 775· 10th Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that claims for release or injunctive relief are cognizable only in habeas corpus and require exhaustion of state remedies, but a claim for money damages under § 1983 may proceed if it does not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings.
• Rodgers v. Wyrick
  621 F.2d 921· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the prisoner must exhaust state remedies by filing a motion to recall the mandate before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, as his prior convictions were used to enhance his current sentence.
• State of N.J. v. Chesimard
  555 F.2d 63· 3d Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge would find that federal intervention is permissible, either because the relief sought is collateral to the state criminal proceeding under Gerstein v. Pugh, or because exceptional circumstances warrant intervention under Younger v. Harris.
• Mucie v. Mo. State Dep't OF Corr.
  543 F.2d 633· 8th Cir.· 1976-11-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that further exhaustion of state remedies was unnecessary due to state delay and the petitioner's lack of standing in state court.
• Singleton v. Estelle
  492 F.2d 671· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-12 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that some claims were unexhausted and the jury discrimination claim failed to establish a prima facie case.
• United States ex rel. Sheldon Leeson v. Damon
  496 F.2d 718· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that erroneous advice from counsel regarding sentencing does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel unless it is so egregious as to shock the conscience.
• Harris v. Estelle
  487 F.2d 1293· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that claims not presented to state courts must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, while exhausted claims can be decided on the merits.