green
Positive treatment
14.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Allah v. Kelly
Id. at 191; Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 , 102 S.Ct. 1198 , 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. Kelly
Id. at 191; Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 , 102 S.Ct. 1198 , 71 L.Ed.2d 379 , (1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Hood
Id. at 191; Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 , 102 S.Ct. 1198 , 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Rhonda Williams, A/K/A Victoria Tribble v. Elaine Lord, Superintendent, Bedford Hills Correctional Facility
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Her reliance on the constitutional right to present a defense presented her claim by stating it “in terms so particular as to call to mind a specific right protected by the Constitution.” Id. at 194.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kessner v. Dupras
Id. at 191; Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 , 102 S.Ct. 1198 , 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Williams
Id. at 191; Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 , 102 S.Ct. 1198 , 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stewart v. Scully
We conclude, however, that the rule against consideration of mixed petitions does not preclude our consideration of Stewart's claims. 25 In Daye v. Attorney General of New York, 696 F.2d 186 (2d Cir.1982) (in banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984), we addressed the exhaustion issue as follows: 26 In summary, the ways in which a state defendant may fairly present to the state courts the constitutional nature of his claim, even without citing chapter and verse of the Constitution, include (a) reliance on pertinent federal cases employing constitutional analysi…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
May v. Hoke
Fair presentation requires the state court to be informed of “both the factual and the legal premises of the claim.” Id. at 191.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. David Patrick Williams and Charles E. Froschauer
Neely v. Israel, 715 F.2d 1261, 1263-64 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 *1223 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Marty O'Shea Franklin v. James Rose
Id. at 193-94 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gandia v. Hoke
Id. at 191-92 (citations and footnote omitted); accord Matusiak v. Kelly, 786 F.2d 536, 542 (2d Cir.) (petitioner must present both essential facts of his claim and legal basis for the claim to state court), cert. dismissed, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 248 , 93 L.Ed.2d 172 (1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jesse James Jackson v. Charles C. Scully, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility
In Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186 (2d Cir.1982) (in banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984), we described four ways in which a defendant in a state criminal proceeding could fairly *295 present the constitutional nature of his claim to a state court without expressly referring to the constitutional provision at issue: (1) by relying on federal case law employing federal constitutional analysis; (2) by relying on state case law employing federal constitutional analysis in similar fact situations; (3) by asserting “the claim in terms so particular as …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Warren Harris v. Charles Scully, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility
(2×)
In Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984), this court, sitting in banc, noted that the exhaustion requirement demands that a ha-beas corpus petitioner “have informed the state court of both the factual and the legal premises of the claim he asserts in federal court”, id. at 191.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Maurice Purnell v. Missouri Department of Corrections
(3×)
The court there suggested that in addition to reliance on cases and specific provisions of the Constitution, a defendant might fairly present habeas claims to a state court by “assertion of the claims in terms so particular as to call to mind a specific right protected by the Constitution” or by “allegation of a pattern of facts that is well within the mainstream of constitutional litigation.” Id. at 194.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clay v. Vose
(2×)
The court cited with approval the exhaustion requirements spelled out in Daye v. Attorney General of the State of New York, 696 F.2d 186 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984), in which the Second Circuit stated that a petitioner could satisfy the exhaustion requirements by citing a *1511 specific provision of the Constitution, presenting the substance of a federal constitutional claim in such a manner that it “must have been likely to alert the court to the claim’s federal nature,” id. at 192, relying on federal constitutional precedents…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Mebane
See Daye v. Attorney General of New York, 712 F.2d 1566 , 1570–71 (2d Cir. 1983) (explaining difference between federal due process standard governing claims of judicial impropriety and ‘‘the stricter standards’’ established pursuant to federal courts’ supervisory authority), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S. Ct. 723 , 79 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Hernandez v. Conway
See Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186, 191 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Taveras v. Smith
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1) (“An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that ... the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State ....”); accord Daye v. Attorney Gen., 696 F.2d 186, 190-91 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Glisson v. Mantello
See Daye v. Attorney General of New York, 696 F.2d 186, 194 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984); Orraca v. Walker, 53 F.Supp.2d 605 , 608 n. 2 (S.D.N.Y.1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Pacheco v. Artuz
See Daye v. Attorney Gen. of N.Y., 696 F.2d 186, 191 (2d Cir.1982) (in banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilson v. Bennett
Servs., 44 F.3d 121, 124 (2d Cir.1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186, 192-93 (2d Cir.1982) (“the nature or presentation of the claim must have been likely to alert the court to the claim’s federal nature”), cert. denied 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Morales v. Miller
See Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186, 191 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Spence v. Superintendent
See Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186, 191 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Clancy v. Commissioner of Correctional Services
See Daye v. Attorney General of the State of New York, 696 F.2d 186, 191-92 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984); see also Petrucelli v. Coombe, 735 F.2d 684, 687 (2d Cir.1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Jones v. Vacco
See Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186, 191 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Mauro Caballero v. John P. Keane
See Daye v. Attorney Gen. of New York, 696 F.2d 186, 191 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
Benefiel v. State
(2×)
See Neely v. Israel (7th Cir.1983), 715 F.2d 1261 , cert. denied (1984), 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 ; Fitzpatrick v. United States (1900), 178 U.S. 304 , 20 S.Ct. 944 , 44 L.Ed. 1078 .
discussed
Cited "see"
David Meadows v. Carl Legursky, Sam Blackburn Acord v. Jerry Hedrick
(2×)
See Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186, 192 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jose Antonio Giraldo
See generally Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186, 196-97 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Holland v. Scully
See Daye v. Attorney General of New York, 696 F.2d 186, 191-92 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Holland v. Scully
See Daye v. Attorney General of New York, 696 F.2d 186, 191-92 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jose Flores Rodriguez v. Charles Scully, Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility
(2×)
See Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186, 199 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc ) (Van Graafeiland, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1983). 7 The district court in the instant case, while recognizing that "the Martinez presumption retains validity after Hawkins ", opted to follow Hawkins because of the "fundamental" constitutional right involved.
cited
Cited "see"
Nelson v. Smith
See Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186, 191 (2d Cir.1982) ten banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Jacobson v. Henderson
See Daye v. Attorney General of State of New York, 696 F.2d 186, 190-91 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Beatty v. Snow
See Daye v. Attorney General of New York, 712 F.2d 1566, 1570 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 278 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1983). 22 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Mebane (Dissent)
See, e.g., Daye v. Attorney General, 712 F.2d 1566, 1570 (2d Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S. Ct. 723 , 79 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Mebane (Dissent)
See, e.g., Daye v. Attorney General, 712 F.2d 1566, 1570 (2d Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S. Ct. 723 , 79 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alston v. Senkowski
Under the habeas statute, “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to 'a judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that ... the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State....” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1)(A); see, e.g., Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186, 190 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Orraca v. Walker
See, e.g., Daye v. Attorney General of New York, 696 F.2d 186, 194 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984); Diaz v. Coombe, 97 Civ. 1621, 1997 WL 529608 at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Thomas E. Rackstraw
Hernandez, 646 F.2d at 978-79 (emphasis added) (citing U.S. v. Hearst, 563 F.2d 1331, 1341-42 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied 435 U.S. 1000 , 98 S.Ct. 1656 , 56 L.Ed.2d 90 (1978)); see also Neely v. Israel, 715 F.2d 1261, 1265 (7th Cir.1983) (holding in habeas corpus case that the defendant waived his right to invoke the Fifth Amendment during his direct testimony and that “‘[a]ny prejudice deriving from the invocation of the privilege is ... attributed to [his] decision to testify’ ”) (quoting United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 909 (5th Cir.1978) (en banc) cert. denied 440 U.S. 920 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mark Wesley Watson v. Richard L. Dugger
See, e.g., Daye v. Attorney General of New York, 696 F.2d 186, 194 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. *372 723, 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984) (listing alternative methods of exhausting federal constitutional issues in state court without specifically referring to them in constitutional terms).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Donovan J.R. Blissett v. Eugene S. Lefevre, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility
As a preliminary matter we note that, contrary to the state’s assertions, petitioner has complied with the statutory requirement that he exhaust his state remedies before applying for a federal writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-276 , 92 S.Ct. 509, 512-513 , 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971); Blazic v. Henderson, 900 F.2d 534, 537 (2d Cir.1990); see also Daye v. Attorney General of the State of New York, 696 F.2d 186 , 190 n. 3 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Genninger v. Butler
See also Daye v. Attorney General of State of New York, 696 F.2d 186, 192-193 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Normand Gagne v. Michael Fair, Commissioner of Corrections
See also Daye v. Attorney General of State of New York, 696 F.2d 186, 192-93 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Washington v. Scully
Compare Daye v. Attorney General of New York, 696 F.2d 186, 192 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc) cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984) (a petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (c), if he fairly presents his federal constitutional claim to the state court).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
LeGrand
v.
Marshall, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
v.
Marshall, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
No. 83-5631.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 9, 1984.
Published
C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.