Legal Opinion
Clements v. Maloney
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided April 30, 2007No. 05-2411PublishedCited by 72 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.
This case, involving the exhaustion requirement for habeas petitioners, requires us to examine some particulars of Massachusetts appellate procedure. Although we note the possibility that a portion of one of our prior decisions, Barresi v. Maloney, 296 F.3d 48 (1st Cir.2002), might no longer be valid in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 124 S.Ct. 1347, 158 L.Ed.2d 64 (2004), we need not decide that question here. We conclude that the habeas petitioner in this case succeeded in exhausting one claim, which the district court found…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Rose v. LundySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Rhines v. WeberSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Baldwin v. ReeseSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Barber v. PageSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Darr v. BurfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by72 opinions
- Fairchild v. WorkmanCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2009
- Janosky v. St. AmandCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2010
- Dutil v. MurphyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2008
- Sanchez v. RodenCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2014
- Clements v. ClarkeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2010
67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.