Charles Farrell v. Michael P. Lane, Director of Illinois Department of Corrections

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a district court judge cannot consider the merits of the petitioner’s habeas argument “unless the state courts have had a full and fair opportunity to review them.”
• prohibiting district courts from addressing claims raised in a habeas petition “unless the state courts have had a full and fair opportunity to review them”
• prohibiting district courts from addressing claims raised in a habeas petition “unless the state courts have had a full and fair opportunity to review them”
• finding petitioner failed to exhaust state court review where he failed to appeal the denial of his post-conviction petition
• prohibiting district courts from addressing claims raised in a habeas petition “unless law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.”
• concluding petitioner exhausted state remedies through latter circumstance

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).