SMITH

v.

KANSAS

Citator

Cited By

• Coughlin v. Capitol Cement Co., 571 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …er question the sufficiency of the evidence that led to his defeat. See House of Koscot Development Corp. v. American Line Cosmetics, 468 F. 2d 64, 67 (5th Cir. 1972); Taylor v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 375 F. 2d 949, 950 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 871, 88 S.Ct. 154, 19 L.Ed.2d 151 (1967). Under these circumstances, our inquiry is limited to whether there was any evidence to support the jury’s verdict, irrespective of its sufficiency, or whether plain error was committed which, if not noticed, wou…
• Limmie West, III v. State OF La., 478 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1973)
  …s action. Lengthy delay in state proceedings, if unjustified, may itself be sufficient reason for waiving the exhaustion requirement. See Dixon v. Florida, 5 Cir. 1968, 388 F. 2d 424; Smith v. Kansas, 10 Cir. 1966, 356 F. 2d 654, cert. denied, 1967, 389 U.S. 871, 88 S.Ct. 154, 19 L.Ed.2d 151. If delay were the only consideration, the proper course would be to remand the case to the district court for a hearing as to whether the delay was justified. But there is another reason for waiving the exhaustion req…
• Naranjo v. Ricketts, 696 F.2d 83 (10th Cir. 1982)
  …rel. Trantino v. Hatrack, 563 F. 2d 86, 95 (3d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 928, 98 S.Ct. 1499, 55 L.Ed.2d 524 (1978); Jenkins v. Fitzberger, 440 F. 2d 1188, 1189 (4th Cir.1971); Smith v. Kansas, 356 F. 2d 654, 656 (10th Cir.1966) cert. denied, 389 U.S. 871, 88 S.Ct. 154, 19 L.Ed.2d 151 (1967). Under the doctrine of comity, a federal court should defer action on claims properly within its jurisdiction until a state court with concurrent power has had an opportunity to consider the matter. Rose v. Lun…