green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
12.4 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…in no area of the law is the need for a federal court to stay its hand pending completion of state proceedings more evident than in the case of pending criminal proceedings.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gorrio v. Warden of Dauphin County Prison
in no area of the law is the need for a federal court to stay its hand pending completion of state proceedings more evident than in the case of pending criminal proceedings.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Phillips, Sr. v. Warden of Dauphin County Prison
in no area of the law is the need for a federal court to stay its hand pending completion of state proceedings more evident than in the case of pending criminal proceedings.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ashford, Jr. v. Dauphin County Adult Probation
See generally Evans v. Court of Common Pleas, 959 F.2d 1227 , 1234 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. dismissed, 113 S. Ct. 1071 (1993) (instructing that “[i]n no area of the law is the need for a federal court to stay its hand pending completion of state proceedings more evident than in the case of pending criminal proceedings”); Parker v. Kelchner, 429 F.3d 58, 61 (3d Cir. 2005) (explaining that, “[b]y requiring exhaustion, federal courts recognize that state courts, no less than federal courts, are bound to safeguard the federal rights of state criminal defendants” (citation and internal quotati…
discussed
Cited "see"
Ashford, Jr. v. Dauphin County Prison
See generally Evans v. Court of Common Pleas, 959 F.2d 1227 , 1234 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. dismissed, 113 S. Ct. 1071 (1993) (instructing that “[i]n no area of the law is the need for a federal court to stay its hand pending completion of state proceedings more evident than in the case of pending criminal proceedings”); Parker v. Kelchner, 429 F.3d 58, 61 (3d Cir. 2005) (explaining that, “[b]y requiring exhaustion, federal courts recognize that state courts, no less than federal courts, are bound to safeguard the federal rights of state criminal defendants” (citation and internal quotati…
discussed
Cited "see"
Torres v. Briggs
See generally Evans v. Court of Common Pleas, 959 F.2d 1227 , 1234 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. dismissed, 113 S. Ct. 1071 (1993) (instructing that “[i]n no area of the law is the need for a federal court to stay its hand pending completion of state proceedings more evident than in the case of pending criminal proceedings”); Parker v. Kelchner, 429 F.3d 58, 61 (3d Cir. 2005) (explaining that, “[b]y requiring exhaustion, federal courts recognize that state courts, no less than federal courts, are bound to safeguard the federal rights of state criminal defendants” (citation and internal quotati…
discussed
Cited "see"
Froneberger v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
See generally Evans v. Court of Common Pleas, 959 F.2d 1227 , 1234 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. dismissed, 113 S. Ct. 1071 (1993) (“In no area of the law is the need for a federal court to stay its hand pending completion of state proceedings more evident than in the case of pending criminal proceedings.”); Wilson v. Sec’y Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., 782 F.3d 110, 118 (3d Cir. 2015) (stating that, “[b]y requiring exhaustion, federal courts recognize that state courts, no less than federal courts, are bound to safeguard the federal rights of state criminal defendants”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rill v. Meyers
(2×)
See Evans v. Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, Pa., 959 F.2d 1227, 1230 (3d Cir.1992) cert. dismissed, 506 U.S. 1089 , 113 S.Ct. 1071 , 122 L.Ed.2d 498 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Will Washington v. Charles James
(2×)
See also Evans v. Court of Common Pleas, 959 F.2d 1227, 1233 (3d Cir.1992) (excusing nonexhaustion in order to determine whether interlocutory habeas review was available at all to petitioner), cert. dismissed, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 1071 , 122 L.Ed.2d 498 (1993); Keller v. Petsock, 853 F.2d 1122, 1128-29 (3d Cir.1988) (excusing nonexhaustion in order to rule that courts may not consider claims involving intra-jury influences).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bolder
v.
Delo, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center
v.
Delo, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center
No. 92-7380 (A-569).
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 26, 1993.
Published
Citer courts: M.D. Pennsylvania (2)
C. A. 8th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Blackmun, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.