Federal Question

113 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Devandlis Wiggins v. Ragen
  238 F.2d 309· 7th Cir.· 1956-10-25 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, reaffirming that while federal courts generally defer to state court decisions on constitutional rights, they must hold a hearing if the averments present unusual circumstances.
• Ekberg v. McGEE
  191 F.2d 625· 9th Cir.· 1951-08-31 ·cited 6×
• United States ex rel. Crist v. Ragen
  157 F.2d 621· 7th Cir.· 1946-10-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the issue of whether extradition waived the state's right to reincarcerate a parole violator is a non-federal question governed by state law.
• Dawsett v. Benson
  156 F.2d 669· 6th Cir.· 1946-08-05 ·cited 6×
  A federal district court correctly denied a habeas corpus petition when the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not seeking review from the United States Supreme Court after the highest state court adjudicated the merits of the petition.
• Oceana Star Allen and William Scott Allen v. Helms
  293 So. 3d 572· Fla. 1st DCA· 2020-03-24 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision that a notice to withdraw settlement proposals was a nullity. The court held that the plaintiffs, who had purchased the proposals from the defendant's bankruptcy trustee, did not possess the equitable interest necessary to wit
• State v. Falcon
  556 So. 2d 762· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-01-26 ·cited 4×
  Florida appealed the dismissal of an embezzlement charge against a contractor, arguing that section 713.34(3) was constitutional. The Second District Court of Appeal held that while the underlying embezzlement charge was valid, the statutory provision creating a prima facie evide
• Peterson v. Tinsley
  331 F.2d 569· 10th Cir.· 1964-05-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because the appellant failed to raise a federal question and habeas corpus is not a substitute for direct appeal.
• United States ex rel. Thomas G. Daniel v. Wilkins
  292 F.2d 348· 2d Cir.· 1961-07-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the duration of detention and interrogation alone was insufficient to establish coercion as a matter of law, and thus the admissions were voluntary.
• Caryl Chessman v. Dickson
  275 F.2d 604· 9th Cir.· 1960-02-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner had not presented substantial federal questions warranting a certificate of probable cause for appeal, and therefore denied the application for a stay of execution.
• 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.
• Gilliam v. State
  268 So. 2d 379· Fla.· 1972-10-13 ·cited 3×
  Petitioners were held in contempt and jailed for refusing to answer questions at trial while claiming Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the contempt conviction on certiorari review, but stayed proceedings to allow petitioner
• Glass v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  457 F.2d 1387· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in submitting the claims of negligence and wantonness to the jury, and the evidence supported the jury's verdicts.
• Streeter v. Craven
  418 F.2d 273· 9th Cir.· 1969-11-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly rejected claims related to the escape conviction but must reconsider claims related to the robbery conviction in light of new precedent.
• Haney v. Nelson
  414 F.2d 801· 9th Cir.· 1969-07-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims do not raise a federal question and that his statements were admissible under the law at the time of his conviction.
• United States ex rel. John Cunningham v. Maroney
  397 F.2d 724· 3d Cir.· 1968-07-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's contentions regarding insufficient evidence and an illegal search did not present a federal question warranting habeas corpus relief.
• Deluis J. Guillory v. Allgood
  379 F.2d 273· 5th Cir.· 1967-06-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the applicant was entitled to a hearing on his habeas corpus petition because he alleged denial of his right to appeal due to lack of a transcript, which is a federal question.
• Douglas v. Lamoyne Green
  333 F.2d 73· 6th Cir.· 1964-06-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for a declaratory judgment because the claims were moot and no facts were alleged to support a declaration that the conviction was null and void.
• Elick D. Tittman v. Great N. Ry. Co.
  252 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1958-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish the railroad's negligence or proximate cause, and thus affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FELA claim.
• United States Ex rel. Holderfield v. Ragen
  170 F.2d 189· 7th Cir.· 1948-10-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's federal rights were not violated by the sentence imposed, as the interpretation of state law was a matter for the Illinois courts.
• Canada v. Jones
  160 F.2d 811· 8th Cir.· 1947-04-18 ·cited 2×
  A federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus application if the petitioner has not exhausted all available state remedies, including appellate review.
• Pollock v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-13
  The court held that most of the applicant's claims are procedurally barred from federal review due to failure to exhaust state remedies or procedural default, and the applicant failed to establish cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
• Juarez v. Crews
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-17
  Noe Juarez sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Florida conviction for manslaughter while driving under the influence and related offenses, for which he received a twenty-year sentence. The federal court denied relief on all grounds, finding
• Morgan v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr. (Nassau County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-02-28
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were either procedurally barred, not substantial enough to overcome procedural default, or that the state court's adjudication was not contrary to federal law or an unreasonable determination of facts.
• Hernandez v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-02-06
  Nicolas Hernandez challenged his state conviction for second-degree murder through a federal habeas corpus petition, alleging violations of Miranda rights during police interrogation and ineffective assistance of counsel on multiple grounds. The District Court denied the petition
• Smith v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Manatee County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-09-29
  Federal habeas relief is available only for constitutional violations, not state law errors, and claims not properly presented to state courts are procedurally barred unless cause and prejudice or manifest injustice is shown.
• Reyes v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-06-30
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were unexhausted, procedurally defaulted, or not cognizable on federal habeas review.
• Vargas v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  373 F. Supp. 2d 1323· M.D. Fla.· 2005-06-20
  The court held that most of the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred, failed to meet the standards for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), or were based on state law issues not cognizable in federal habeas corpus.
• Baldigo v. Postmaster Gen. OF the United States
  514 F.2d 142· 7th Cir.· 1975-04-07
  The court held that the anti-pandering statute does not apply to mail that the recipient solicited, as this would be an unreasonable interpretation beyond congressional intent.
• DeHAM v. Decker
  361 F.2d 477· 5th Cir.· 1966-06-02
  The court held that the evidence supporting the conviction was not so insufficient as to violate due process, and thus no federal question was presented.
• Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Jones
  22 Fla. Supp. 89· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1963-10-21
  In this mortgage foreclosure case, the Dade County Circuit Court entered a final foreclosure decree against defendants Abraham and Anna Block in favor of Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and subsequently addressed the distribution of sale surplus by ruling that
• Javor v. Dickson
  295 F.2d 61· 9th Cir.· 1961-08-28
  The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause.
• Hijos v. Pasarell
  225 F.2d 715· 1st Cir.· 1955-09-12
  The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding no basis to deem it 'inescapably wrong' or 'patently erroneous'.
• In re the Application of Walter Thomas Byrd
  219 F.2d 221· 9th Cir.· 1955-02-04
  The court denied the petition for a certificate of probable cause, finding no federal question presented.
• Dade Cnty. v. S. Bell Tel. &. Tel. Co.
  4 Fla. Supp. 11· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1953-05-15
  Circuit court stayed proceedings pending resolution of a parallel test case in Duval County involving the same legal question of whether a telephone company must bear the cost of relocating its facilities for federal highway construction.
• Baker v. Utecht
  161 F.2d 304· 8th Cir.· 1947-04-28
  A federal court will not re-examine a federal constitutional issue previously adjudicated by state courts and denied certiorari by the Supreme Court, especially when the petitioner had counsel and an avenue for appeal.
• Am. Ry. Express Co. v. Johnson
  87 Fla. 451· Fla.· 1924-05-08
  American Railway Express Company appeals a jury verdict awarding Johnson Brothers damages for failure to deliver perishable beans due to a railroad switchmen's strike. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that an unauthorized "outlaw" strike falls within a contractual exem