Pike v. Guarino

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the state waived its exhaustion defense when it stated that it believed that the petitioner was correct in her assertion that the claims had been exhausted
• holding statement that “‘petitioner is correct in her assertion that [the] -7- claims presented . . . have been exhausted’” was “unmistakably clear” and could not be resurrected on appeal (alteration in original)
• holding, inter alia, that, because the defendant and her boyfriend, the codefendant, had been held for more than a year on separate floors of the facility, their lack of physical proximity had caused his control over her to diminish
• acknowledging the “separate and exacting standard applicable to review of a state court’s factual findings”
• discussing the “separate and exacting standard applicable to review of a state court’s factual findings”
• discussing the “separate and exacting standard applicable to review of a state court’s factual findings”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).