Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Personal Restraint of Jeffriesgreen2 sentences2004As noted above, the State argues that Stenson’s PRP is barred as an abuse of the writ. ¶8 The abuse of the writ doctrine states that “if the petitioner was represented by counsel throughout postconviction proceedings, it is an abuse of the writ for him or her to raise, in a successive petition, a new issue that was ‘ “available but not relied upon in a prior petition.” ’ ” Jeffries, 114 Wn.2d at 492 (quoting Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 , 444 n.6, 106 S. Ct. 2616 , 91 L. 2004The abuse of the writ doctrine states that "if the petitioner was represented by counsel throughout postconviction proceedings, it is an abuse of the writ for him or her to raise, in a successive petition, a new issue that was '"available but not relied upon in a prior petition."'" Jeffries, 114 Wash.2d at 492 , 789 P.2d 731 (quoting Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 , 444 n. 6, 106 S.Ct. 2616 , 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986)). | 2 | 8 |
Sanders v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2004Originally, the abuse of the writ doctrine allowed courts to dismiss successive petitions for collateral relief based on new arguments when it appeared that the petitioner “(1) made a conscious decision deliberately to withhold them from a prior petition, (2) is pursuing needless piecemeal litigation, or (3) has raised the claims only to vex, harass, or delay.” Hamilton v. Vasquez, 882 F.2d 1469, 1473 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 18 , 83 S. Ct. 1068 , 10 L. 2004Originally, the abuse of the writ doctrine allowed courts to dismiss successive petitions for collateral relief based on new arguments when it appeared that the petitioner “(1) made a conscious decision deliberately to withhold them from a prior petition, (2) is pursuing needless piecemeal litigation, or (3) has raised the claims only to vex, harass, or delay.” Hamilton v. Vasquez, 882 F.2d 1469, 1473 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 18 , 83 S. Ct. 1068 , 10 L. | 2 | 4 |
Jimmy Neuschafer v. Harol Whitley Attorney General for the State of Nevada, Respondentsgreen2 sentences2004Ed. 2d 148 (1963); Neuschafer v. Whitley, 860 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1988)). 2004Originally, the abuse of the writ doctrine allowed courts to dismiss successive petitions for collateral relief based on new arguments when it appeared that the petitioner "(1) made a conscious decision deliberately to withhold them from a prior petition, (2) is pursuing needless piecemeal litigation, or (3) has raised the claims only to vex, harass, or delay." Hamilton v. Vasquez, 882 F.2d 1469, 1473 (9th Cir.1989) ( citing Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 18 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963); Neuschafer v. Whitley, 860 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir.1988)). | 2 | 2 |
Bernard Lee Hamilton v. Dan Vasquez, Warden of San Quentin John K. Van De Kamp, Attorney General of the State of Californiagreen2 sentences2004Originally, the abuse of the writ doctrine allowed courts to dismiss successive petitions for collateral relief based on new arguments when it appeared that the petitioner “(1) made a conscious decision deliberately to withhold them from a prior petition, (2) is pursuing needless piecemeal litigation, or (3) has raised the claims only to vex, harass, or delay.” Hamilton v. Vasquez, 882 F.2d 1469, 1473 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 18 , 83 S. Ct. 1068 , 10 L. 2004Originally, the abuse of the writ doctrine allowed courts to dismiss successive petitions for collateral relief based on new arguments when it appeared that the petitioner "(1) made a conscious decision deliberately to withhold them from a prior petition, (2) is pursuing needless piecemeal litigation, or (3) has raised the claims only to vex, harass, or delay." Hamilton v. Vasquez, 882 F.2d 1469, 1473 (9th Cir.1989) ( citing Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 18 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963); Neuschafer v. Whitley, 860 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir.1988)). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re the Personal Restraint of Greening
green
2 sentences2004Restraint of Greening, 141 Wn.2d 687, 699 , 9 P.3d 206 (2000) (quoting In re Pers. 2004Greening, 141 Wn.2d at 700-01 . | 4 | 2004–2004 |
In Re Greening
green
2 sentences2004Restraint of Greening, 141 Wn.2d 687, 699 , 9 P.3d 206 (2000) (quoting In re Pers. 2004Greening, 141 Wash.2d at 700-01 , 9 P.3d 206 . [5] We note that the Court in McCleskey cited federal cases decided in the 1980s for the proposition that "a petitioner may abuse the writ by failing to raise a claim through inexcusable neglect." McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 489 , 111 S.Ct. 1454 (citing Jones v. Estelle, 722 F.2d 159 (5th Cir.1983), overruled on other grounds by Saahir v. Collins, 956 F.2d 115 (5th Cir.1992), and Miller v. Bordenkircher, 764 F.2d 245 (4th Cir.1985)). | 3 | 2004–2004 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Stoudmire
green
2 sentences2004Stoudmire, 141 Wn.2d at 352 . 4 As explained, however, Jeffries does not support this view and it is not consistent with the goals of finality and avoiding piecemeal litigation that underlie the abuse of the writ doctrine. 2004Stoudmire, 141 Wash.2d at 352 , 5 P.3d 1240 . [4] As explained, however, Jeffries does not support this view and it is not consistent with the goals of finality and avoiding piecemeal litigation that underlie the abuse of the writ doctrine. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Kuhlmann v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2004As noted above, the State argues that Stenson’s PRP is barred as an abuse of the writ. ¶8 The abuse of the writ doctrine states that “if the petitioner was represented by counsel throughout postconviction proceedings, it is an abuse of the writ for him or her to raise, in a successive petition, a new issue that was ‘ “available but not relied upon in a prior petition.” ’ ” Jeffries, 114 Wn.2d at 492 (quoting Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 , 444 n.6, 106 S. Ct. 2616 , 91 L. 2004As noted above, the State argues that Stenson’s PRP is barred as an abuse of the writ. ¶8 The abuse of the writ doctrine states that “if the petitioner was represented by counsel throughout postconviction proceedings, it is an abuse of the writ for him or her to raise, in a successive petition, a new issue that was ‘ “available but not relied upon in a prior petition.” ’ ” Jeffries, 114 Wn.2d at 492 (quoting Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 , 444 n.6, 106 S. Ct. 2616 , 91 L. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
In Re the Personal Restraint of Haverty
green
2 sentences2000Jeffries, 114 Wn.2d at 488 -92 (citing In re Personal Restraint of Haverty, 101 Wn.2d 498, 503 , 681 P.2d 835 (1984) (quoting Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15, 17 , 83 S. Ct. 1068 , 10 L. 2000Jeffries, 114 Wn.2d at 488 -92 (citing In re Personal Restraint of Haverty, 101 Wn.2d 498, 503 , 681 P.2d 835 (1984) (quoting Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15, 17 , 83 S. Ct. 1068 , 10 L. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Delo v. Stokes
green
2 sentences2004For example, in Delo v. Stokes, 495 U.S. 320, 321-22 , 110 S.Ct. 1880 , 109 L.Ed.2d 325 (1990), the Court concluded that the abuse of the writ doctrine applied to preclude a stay of execution sought for the purpose of filing a successive habeas petition where the petitioner relied on *859 equal protection principles that were not novel and could have been developed earlier. 2004For example, in Delo v. Stokes, 495 U.S. 320, 321-22 , 110 S.Ct. 1880 , 109 L.Ed.2d 325 (1990), the Court concluded that the abuse of the writ doctrine applied to preclude a stay of execution sought for the purpose of filing a successive habeas petition where the petitioner relied on *859 equal protection principles that were not novel and could have been developed earlier. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
McCleskey v. Zant
green
2 sentences2004Greening, 141 Wash.2d at 700-01 , 9 P.3d 206 . [5] We note that the Court in McCleskey cited federal cases decided in the 1980s for the proposition that "a petitioner may abuse the writ by failing to raise a claim through inexcusable neglect." McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 489 , 111 S.Ct. 1454 (citing Jones v. Estelle, 722 F.2d 159 (5th Cir.1983), overruled on other grounds by Saahir v. Collins, 956 F.2d 115 (5th Cir.1992), and Miller v. Bordenkircher, 764 F.2d 245 (4th Cir.1985)). 2004Greening, 141 Wash.2d at 700-01 , 9 P.3d 206 . [5] We note that the Court in McCleskey cited federal cases decided in the 1980s for the proposition that "a petitioner may abuse the writ by failing to raise a claim through inexcusable neglect." McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 489 , 111 S.Ct. 1454 (citing Jones v. Estelle, 722 F.2d 159 (5th Cir.1983), overruled on other grounds by Saahir v. Collins, 956 F.2d 115 (5th Cir.1992), and Miller v. Bordenkircher, 764 F.2d 245 (4th Cir.1985)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Charles Jones v. W.J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence2004Greening, 141 Wash.2d at 700-01 , 9 P.3d 206 . [5] We note that the Court in McCleskey cited federal cases decided in the 1980s for the proposition that "a petitioner may abuse the writ by failing to raise a claim through inexcusable neglect." McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 489 , 111 S.Ct. 1454 (citing Jones v. Estelle, 722 F.2d 159 (5th Cir.1983), overruled on other grounds by Saahir v. Collins, 956 F.2d 115 (5th Cir.1992), and Miller v. Bordenkircher, 764 F.2d 245 (4th Cir.1985)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Ray Jackie Miller v. Donald Bordenkircher, Warden, West Virginia State Penitentiary and Attorney General of West Virginia
green
1 sentence2004Greening, 141 Wash.2d at 700-01 , 9 P.3d 206 . [5] We note that the Court in McCleskey cited federal cases decided in the 1980s for the proposition that "a petitioner may abuse the writ by failing to raise a claim through inexcusable neglect." McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 489 , 111 S.Ct. 1454 (citing Jones v. Estelle, 722 F.2d 159 (5th Cir.1983), overruled on other grounds by Saahir v. Collins, 956 F.2d 115 (5th Cir.1992), and Miller v. Bordenkircher, 764 F.2d 245 (4th Cir.1985)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In Re Stoudmire
green
1 sentence2004Stoudmire, 141 Wash.2d at 352 , 5 P.3d 1240 . [4] As explained, however, Jeffries does not support this view and it is not consistent with the goals of finality and avoiding piecemeal litigation that underlie the abuse of the writ doctrine. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Jihaad A.M.E. Saahir v. James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
green
1 sentence2004Greening, 141 Wash.2d at 700-01 , 9 P.3d 206 . [5] We note that the Court in McCleskey cited federal cases decided in the 1980s for the proposition that "a petitioner may abuse the writ by failing to raise a claim through inexcusable neglect." McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 489 , 111 S.Ct. 1454 (citing Jones v. Estelle, 722 F.2d 159 (5th Cir.1983), overruled on other grounds by Saahir v. Collins, 956 F.2d 115 (5th Cir.1992), and Miller v. Bordenkircher, 764 F.2d 245 (4th Cir.1985)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.