Legal Opinion
William Nadworny v. Michael v. Fair
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided April 20, 1989No. 88-1844PublishedCited by 133 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SELYA, Circuit Judge.
We revisit today an enduring riddle, now codified: the requirement that a state prisoner who petitions for federal habeas relief must have given the state courts first crack at the claims which he raises. 1 The relative ease with which the requirement can be stated belies the morass of interpretive difficulties which often engulfs individual petitions.
Any reasoned explication of the modern-day state of the law must find its genesis in Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971). The Court there announced what seemed a straightforward rule: before…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Rose v. LundySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Picard v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Mullaney v. WilburSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1973
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by133 opinions
- Eric Allen Peterson v. Robert LampertCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Nazzaro Scarpa v. Larry E. Dubois, Etc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994
- Juan Verdin v. Michael O'Leary and Neil F. HartiganCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Oscar Cruz v. MelecioCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000
- Thomas W. Mallory, Jr. v. David K. Smith, Warden James S. Gilmore, Iii, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994
128 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.