Edward D. Anderson v. Daniel Benik

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that, “[i]n the interests of federal-state comity, both the operative facts and controlling law must be put before the state courts”
• stating that, “[i]n the interests of federal-state comity, both the operative facts and controlling law must be put before the state courts”
• no certificate of appealability is needed to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition challenging a parole revocation, because the parole revocation did not \arise[] out of process issued by a State court\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).