Supreme Court· 3/8/1982

Rose v. Lundy

Citations

455 U.S. 509
102 S. Ct. 1198
71 L. Ed. 2d 379
1982 U.S. LEXIS 79

About this case

Rose v. Lundy — U.S. Supreme Court case. This entry links to the full opinion in the CourtListener corpus.

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

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

holding that a federal district court must dismiss a state habeas petitioner's writ containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims
holding that a federal habeas court ordinarily should not adjudicate a “mixed” petition, i.e., one containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims
holding that a federal habeas court ordinarily should not adjudicate a “mixed” petition, i.e., one containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims
holding that district court should dismiss, without prejudice, habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims
holding that a district court must dismiss habeas petitions containing any claims that have not been exhausted in state court
holding that district courts ordinarily must dismiss a § 2254 petition without prejudice if the petitioner has not exhausted his state postconviction remedies

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: O'Connor, Court'S, Burger, Brennan, Marshall, Powell, Rehnquist, Iii-C, Blackmun, White, Stevens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1,988 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

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

Other cases named Rose v. Lundy

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.