Adelson v. DiPaola

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that' “mere incantation of constitutional buzzwords, unaccompanied by any federal constitutional analysis, does not suffice to carry the burden of demonstrating fair presentment of a .federal claim”
• observing that “our de novo appellate review of a district court’s dismissal of a habeas petition for want of exhaustion is necessarily case-specific”
• ruling that petitioner did not exhaust a due process claim when he had not premised either his Appeals Court or Supreme Judicial Court appeal on federal constitutional grounds or cited any federal cases, relying solely on Massachusetts case law
• holding petitioner did not exhaust his remedies because he “relied only upon [state] case law and debated the assignment of error exclusively in state-law terms”
• noting that the petitioner must present the federal claim to the Supreme Judicial Court within “the four corners” of the ALOFAR
• holding due process claim not exhausted where petitioner cited no federal cases, constitutional provisions, or state cases analyzing federal law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).