[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
1) some of the federal claims were in fact considered and rejected by state courts, and therefore couldn't be brought up again;

[/ QUOTE ]

The state court's ruling on a constitutional question aren't binding on federal courts

[ QUOTE ]
2) other claims would likely have been barred by the rule that you need to bring all of your claims arising from one set of facts in one case or by abstention principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would suspect this is closer, but the Constitutional claims didn't come into play until the "state action" of ordering the removal of the feeding tube, thus, they couldn't have been argued.