Valerio Ernest Miranda v. Thomas Cooper, Superintendent, and Frank Gunter, (Gunther) Sic, Director, D.O.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it is a habeas petitioner’s burden to show he is excused from exhausting available state court remedies
• holding that Stone barred consideration of a claim because petitioner did not raise it in state court despite the opportunity to do so
• holding that Stone barred consideration of a claim because petitioner did not raise it in state court despite the opportunity to do so
• stating that exhaustion of state remedies is a prerequisite to raising a federal constitutional claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
• noting that federal courts “will not excuse a failure to exhaust state remedies in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action unless it is affirmatively shown that resort to them would be useless”
• noting that federal courts “will not excuse a failure to exhaust state remedies in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action unless it is affirmatively shown that resort to them would be useless”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).