Legal Opinion

Holman v. Gillis

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided July 21, 1999No. Civil Action 98-4276PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge.

This case raises issues of comity and federalism at the intersection of a state’s power to administer its criminal justice system and federal habeas corpus jurisdiction. To harmonize these interests, federal law requires that, in order to seek federal habeas corpus review of claims challenging a state criminal conviction, a petitioner must show that he has exhausted all available state remedies as to all such claims. The 1995 amendments to the Pennsylvania Posi^Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) mandate that PCRA petitions must be filed within one year…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. O'Sullivan v. BoerckelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  4. Rose v. LundySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Terry v. GillisDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Pace v. VaughnDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2001
  3. McCabe v. PennsylvaniaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2006
  4. Holman v. GillisDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2000
  5. Arias v. Superintendent, SCI FayetteDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2024

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API