Also known as: exhaustion doctrine · exhaustion of rights · exhaustion
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A rule requiring a judgment creditor to exhaust partnership assets before levying execution against a partner's personal assets. Permission to proceed against the partner is granted when partnership assets are clearly insufficient to satisfy the judgment, when exhaustion would be excessively burdensome, or when equitable considerations support immediate collection from the partner.
A procedural requirement that a party pursue all available administrative or state-court remedies before seeking federal judicial review. The requirement prevents premature federal intervention and ensures that agencies or state courts have the first opportunity to resolve disputes.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A rule requiring a judgment creditor to exhaust partnership assets before levying execution against a partner's personal assets. Permission to proceed against the partner is granted when partnership assets are clearly insufficient to satisfy the judgment, when exhaustion would be excessively burdensome, or when equitable considerations support immediate collection from the partner.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Dynamic Solutions obtained a judgment against Dawson Steel after the partnership failed to pay for supplied materials. The partnership's bank accounts and equipment proved insufficient to cover the full amount. The court permitted Dynamic Solutions to levy execution against the personal assets of partner Darius Dixon after finding that further pursuit of partnership property would be excessively burdensome.
Drake Logistics won a judgment against Dixon Foods, a limited partnership. The partnership's remaining inventory and accounts receivable fell short of the award. The court allowed execution against the personal assets of general partner Diane Dawson because exhaustion of the limited partnership's assets would impose undue delay and expense.
A court may excuse exhaustion when partnership assets are clearly insufficient, when further collection efforts would be excessively burdensome, or when equitable powers support immediate execution against a partner. The rule also permits collection without exhaustion if the partnership is in bankruptcy or the partner has agreed to waive the requirement.
Supporting sources
A procedural requirement that a party pursue all available administrative or state-court remedies before seeking federal judicial review. The requirement prevents premature federal intervention and ensures that agencies or state courts have the first opportunity to resolve disputes.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Doris Duffy's Social Security disability benefits were terminated after an agency review. She sought federal court relief without first completing the agency's internal reconsideration and hearing steps. The court dismissed the action because Duffy had not exhausted the available administrative remedies that could have restored her benefits.
Destiny Davis sued in federal court over a construction contract dispute while a parallel state proceeding remained pending. She asked the federal court to stay the state action. The court declined, noting that the parties had not yet exhausted the contractual arbitration process that could resolve the entire controversy.
When a client fails to exhaust internal or administrative remedies before the attorney's alleged negligence, that failure can disable the client from proving that the underlying claim would have succeeded. The client's own conduct in bypassing available remedies may therefore bar recovery against the attorney even if the attorney missed a deadline.
Supporting sources
No. Plaintiffs bringing facial constitutional challenges in federal court are not required to exhaust state administrative or legislative remedies absent a specific statutory mandate. Abstention may still apply for other reasons, such as unresolved state-law questions, but exhaustion itself is not a prerequisite.
Supporting sources
…deprives the District Court of jurisdiction under this provision. We have previously held that the doctrine of administrative exhaustion is not jurisdictional, but is a matter of judicial discretion. Weinberger v. Salfi , 422 U.S. 749, 765-767 (1975). In Salfi , we considered a constitutional challenge to a…
…U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982), requiring dismissal of the entire petition. The court held, however, that the exhaustion requirement is "a matter of comity rather than a matter of jurisdiction" and hence admitted of exceptions. The court agreed with the District Court that this case came within an exception…
…see also Hall Street Assocs. , 552 U. S., at 581. Thus, in Preston v. Ferrer , holding preempted a state-law rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before arbitration, we said: “A prime objective of an agreement to arbitrate is to achieve ‘streamlined proceedings and expeditious results,’ ” which objective…
…jurisdiction of 28 U. S. C. § 1331 was added in 1875. 18 Stat. 470. [^maj-14]: We have already held that § 1983 requires no exhaustion of state remedies. McNeese v. Board of Education , 373 U. S. 668. [^maj-15]: In accord with the view are Honey v. Goodman , 432 F. 2d 333 (CA6), and Cooper v. Hutchinson , 184 F. 2d 119…
…are too long; the same issues are litigated over and over; transaction costs exceed the victims' recovery by nearly two to one; exhaustion
Derek Douglas was convicted in state court and filed a federal habeas petition challenging his sentence. He had not yet presented his ineffective-assistance claim to the state appellate courts. The federal court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies.
Dwight Dorsey sued a foreign corporation in federal court for alleged overseas conduct. The claims rested on events that occurred entirely outside the United States. The court dismissed the action because Dorsey had not exhausted available remedies in the foreign jurisdiction where the conduct took place.
A habeas petitioner must present the federal constitutional claim to the state's highest court through available appellate or post-conviction procedures. Failure to do so results in dismissal of the federal petition unless the state expressly waives the requirement.
Supporting sources