Citation network
Slack Vs. Mcdaniel
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 26, 2000
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. 473 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Slack V. McdanielSearch
-
to the Nevada courts, but could not do so under the rule requiring complete exhaustion of state remedies, see Rose v. LundySearch
-
c), controls his case because, in Lindh v. MurphySearch
-
While an appeal is a continuation of the litigation started in the trial court, it is a distinct step. E. g., Hohn v. UnitedSearch
-
is a codification of the CPC standard announced in Barefoot v. EstelleSearch
-
U. S. 880 , 894. See Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
a constitutional question if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
petition was second or successive implicates his right to relief in the trial court, preAEDPA law governs. See Lindh v. MurphySearch
-
which incorporates the Court's prior decisions on the 476 Syllabus subject, McCleskey v. ZantSearch
-
phrase is a term of art given substance in, e. g., Rose v. LundySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
exhaustion, id., at 520-521. Thus, a petition filed after a mixed petition has been dismissed under Rose v. LundySearch
-
any claims is to be treated as any other first petition and is not a second or successive petition. Neither Rose v. LundySearch
-
nor Stewart v. Martinez-VillarealSearch
-
He could not raise the claims in federal court because, under the exhaustion of remedies rule explained in Rose v. LundySearch
-
Slack v. DirectorSearch
-
which had been presented to the state courts and some which had not. As its second ground, the State cited Farmer v. McDanielSearch
-
standards for the issuance of a CPC, but the Court established what a prisoner must show to obtain a CPC in Barefoot v. EstelleSearch
-
controls Slack's right to appeal. In Lindh v. MurphySearch
-
us. While an appeal is a continuation of the litigation started in the trial court, it is a distinct step. Hohn v. UnitedSearch
-
because his petition had been filed in the District Court before AEDPA's effective date. Brief for Petitioner in Hohn v. UnitedSearch
-
See Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
petition was second or successive implicates his right to relief in the trial court, pre-AEDPA law governs, see Lindh v. MurphySearch
-
though we do not suggest the definition of second or successive would be different under AEDPA. See Stewart v. Martinez-VillarealSearch
-
the issue. The Rule incorporates our prior decisions regarding successive petitions and abuse of the writ, McCleskey v. ZantSearch
-
is a term of art given substance in our prior habeas corpus cases. The Court's decision in Rose v. LundySearch
-
U. S., at 510, instructs us in reaching our understanding of the term. Rose v. LundySearch
-
Stewart v. Martinez-Search
-
supra, at 644. We adhere to this analysis. A petition filed after a mixed petition has been dismissed under Rose v. LundySearch
-
upon his return to federal court, should be restricted to the claims made in his initial petition. Neither Rose v. LundySearch
-
as though it had not been filed, subject to whatever conditions the court attaches to the dismissal. Rose v. LundySearch
-
be considered by the federal court. Slack's 1991 petition was dismissed under the procedure established in Rose v. LundySearch
-
well by opinions of the Courts of Appeals which have addressed the point under similar circumstances. E. g., Carlson v. PitcherSearch
-
Christy v. HornSearch
-
Dickinson v. MaineSearch
-
Camarano v. IrvinSearch
-
was wrong, for we have determined that a habeas petition filed after an initial petition was dismissed under Rose v. LundySearch
-
noticed after the effective date of AEDPA in a habeas corpus proceeding commenced prior to that date. See Fuller v. RoeSearch
-
Crowell v. WalshSearch
-
Tejeda v. DuboisSearch
-
Berrios v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. KunzmanSearch
-
United States v. SkandierSearch
-
Hardwick v. SingletarySearch
-
Arredondo v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial