Darrell Wingett and Carol Wingett v. Kishore K. Challa, M.D.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a court presented with a mixed petition may ignore the exhaustion requirement altogether and deny the petition on the merits if it finds that none of the claims are meritorious
• finding that the state forfeited the issue of diligence under § 2254(e)(2) by failing to preserve it for appellate review
• finding that the state forfeited the issue of diligence under § 2254(e)(2) by failing to preserve it for appellate review
• noting that “[u]nder AEDPA, a federal habeas court may not grant an evidentiary hearing to a defendant who failed to develop his claim in state court, except in a few, narrowly defined circumstances”
• noting that the “stay and abeyance” approach is proper when the petition contains potentially meritorious claims and the petitioner can demonstrate good cause for failure to exhaust
• explaining that petitioner “is required to properly request an evidentiary hearing in the district court, because we ordinarily do not decide issues raised for the first time on appeal”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).