Tenth Circuit· 8/31/2009

Fairchild v. Workman

Citations

579 F.3d 1134
2009 WL 2710320

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).

Judges: Hartz, McConnell, Holmes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

36 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

64 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.