SMITH

v.

WOODARD ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Klein v. Harris, 667 F.2d 274 (2d Cir. 1981)
  …clusive effect to their own procedural rules, comity concerns do not require that the federal courts give greater respect to those rules than the states themselves.” Mitchell v. Smith, 633 F. 2d 1009, 1011 (2d Cir. 1980) (Timbers, J.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1088, 101 S.Ct. 879, 66 L.Ed.2d 814 (1981). Further, it would be nonsensical for a federal habeas court, out of concerns for trial finality, accuracy, and integrity, to refuse to review the merits of a petitioner’s claim on the ground of a procedural def…
• Davis v. Greer, 675 F.2d 141 (7th Cir. 1982)
  …aware of only three habeas corpus cases in this Circuit in which the petitioner claimed that he was denied due process by the state trial court’s failure to give a requested instruction. Pharr v. Israel, 629 F. 2d 1278 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1088, 101 S.Ct. 880, 66 L.Ed.2d 815 .(1981); United States ex rel. Peery v. Sielaff, 615 F. 2d 402 (7th Cir. 1979) (per curiam), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 940, 100 S.Ct. 2163, 64 L.Ed.2d 774 reh. denied, 448 U.S. [*144] 912, 101 S.Ct. 29, 65 L.Ed.2d 1174 (1…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• McPHAIL v. Warden, Attica Corr. Facility, & Attorney Gen. of the State of N.Y., 707 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1983)
  …, for whatever reason, declined to 'respect’ state rules of procedure,” Klein, supra, 667 F. 2d at 286, they have manifested a willingness to have substantive issues considered. See also Mitchell v. Smith, 633 F. 2d 1009 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1088, 101 S.Ct. 879, 66 L.Ed.2d 814 (1981). McPhail correctly argues the state coram nobis court decided the retroactivity issue on the merits, and contends therefore we may reach it as well. We disagree. Our decision in Gates v. Henderson, supra, refus…