Citation network
O'Sullivan Vs. Boerckel
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 30, 1999
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 838 (1999) October Term, 1998 Syllabus O'Sullivan V. BoerckelSearch
-
to resolve federal constitutional claims before those claims are presented to the federal courts. See, e. g., Castille v. PeoplesSearch
-
because the confession was coerced, and because he had not knowingly and intelligently waived his rights under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Court, with one justice dissenting, rejected Boerckel's claims and affirmed his convictions and sentences. People v. BoerckelSearch
-
petition for leave to appeal, and this Court denied Boerckel's subsequent petition for a writ of certiorari. Boerckel v. IllinoisSearch
-
and (6) that his right to discovery of exculpatory material under Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
exception to the procedural default rule. See Coleman v. ThompsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
ruling, the District Court concluded that Boerckel had failed to satisfy the standards established in Schlup v. DeloSearch
-
to resolve a conflict in the Courts of Appeals on this issue. 525 U. S. 999 (1998). Compare e. g., Richardson v. ProcunierSearch
-
F.2d 429 (CA5 1985) (must file petition for discretionary review), with Dolny v. EricksonSearch
-
See Castille v. PeoplesSearch
-
Wain wright v. SykesSearch
-
state court review, we have never interpreted the exhaustion requirement in such a restrictive fashion. See Wilwording v. SwensonSearch
-
Thus, we have not interpreted the exhaustion doctrine to require prisoners to file repetitive petitions. See Brown v. AllenSearch
-
review process and where the state courts have not provided relief through those remedies in the past. See Wilwording v. SwensonSearch
-
c) requires only that state prisoners give state courts a fair opportunity to act on their claims. See Castille v. PeoplesSearch
-
law, the state courts should have the first opportunity to review this claim and provide any necessary relief. Rose v. LundySearch
-
had an opportunity to correct the constitutional violation in the first instance. Ibid. See also Duckworth v. SerranoSearch
-
he presents his claims to a federal court. Unlike the extraordinary procedures that we found unnecessary in Brown v. AllenSearch
-
and Wilwording v. SwensonSearch
-
see also State v. SandonSearch
-
to the Illinois Supreme Court in a timely fashion has resulted in a procedural default of those claims. See Coleman v. ThompsonSearch
-
Ante, at 844 (citing Wilwording v. SwensonSearch
-
and (2) the waiver, or so-called procedural default, rule, applied in cases like Francis v. HendersonSearch
-
to await a decision by the highest court of the State. We clarified this abstention principle in Urquhart v. BrownSearch
-
see United States ex rel. Kennedy v. TylerSearch
-
of state procedures at the time when the federal court is asked to entertain a habeas petition. Our decision in Moore v. DempseySearch
-
mean that the claim had not been exhausted. When we implicitly overruled Moore several years later in Coleman v. ThompsonSearch
-
Mur ray v. CarrierSearch
-
id., at 495. In the first of our modern procedural default cases, Francis v. HendersonSearch
-
Id., at 541. Similarly, in Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
Id., at 88,90. In Engle v. IsaacSearch
-
state remedy in order to avoid procedural default. As far back as Brown v. AllenSearch
-
relief under the State Administrative Procedure Act, even if those procedures were technically available. Wilwording v. SwensonSearch
-
claims to the Illinois Supreme Court in a timely fashion has resulted in a procedural default of those claims. Coleman v. ThompsonSearch
-
U. S. 527 , 536 (1986) (quoting Jones v. BarnesSearch
-
the claim in a petition for review to 859 the Illinois Supreme Court. Id., at 1199 (citing Gomez v. AcevedoSearch
-
F.3d 192 , 195-196 (CA7 1997) (which cites in turn People v. ColemanSearch
-
at 736-738. We ordinarily defer to a federal court of appeals' interpretation of state-law questions. See Bishop v. WoodSearch
-
See, e. g., Coleman v. ThompSearch
-
overburdened state courts and delay further a criminal process that is often criticized for too much delay. Cf. Hohn v. UnitedSearch
-
Syllabus O'Sullivan V. BoerckelSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial