Legal Opinion · Concurrence

George Pappageorge v. George W. Sumner, Warden

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided September 29, 1982No. 81-5489PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1ConcurrenceEly, Circuit Judge

I concur in the result. At the same time, however, I believe that the exhaustion problem warrants more extensive discussion.

Although the habeas statute speaks of the exhaustion of “the remedies available in the courts of the State,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), the Supreme Court has normally spoken of the exhaustion requirement in terms of the exhaustion of “federal claims” or “claims of constitutional error.” See Rose v. Lundy, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982) (emphasis added). Thus, the majority appears correct when it asserts that the Supreme Court has never explicitly decided…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Rose v. LundySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Picard v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Troy Cooper v. C. J. FitzharrisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
  4. Wallace Leroy Schiers v. The People of the State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
  5. James E. Domaingue v. Fred ButterworthCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1981

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

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. Ybarra v. SumnerDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1988
  2. Johnstone v. WolffDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1984
  3. Date v. SchriroDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2008
  4. Rodney K. Burns v. W.J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983
  5. Milton Tony Greene v. I.C. Haunani Henry, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002

44 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