Sherman v. McDaniel

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the court, in 16 exercising its discretion under Rule 6, should take into 17 consideration whether the claims to which petitioner’s proposed 18 discovery relates are exhausted in state court
• denying discovery on unexhausted claims because allowing discovery “would tend to undermine the exhaustion requirement, and the doctrine of federal-state comity on which it rests”
• denying discovery on unexhausted claims because “[t]o do so would tend to undermine the exhaustion requirement, and the doctrine of federal-state comity on which it rests”
• denying discovery on unexhausted claims because “[t]o do so would tend to undermine the exhaustion requirement, and the doctrine of federal- state comity on which it rests”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).