182 F.3d 769, 773 (10th Cir.1999) ("[I]f it is determined that the state post-conviction procedure is unconstitutional, then such procedures would not, in most instances, be regarded as an adequate state procedural bar to habeas consideration of the underlying conviction.”). 4 .Other circuits have repeatedly enforced the "alternative holding” rule set forth in Harris. See, e.g., Stephens v. Branker, 570 F.3d 198, 208 (4th Cir.2009); Campbell v. Burris, 515 F.3d 172, 177 & n. 3 (3d Cir.2008) (noting that whether the state court “actually reviewed” the merits of a petiti the OCCA no doubt made an alternative holding on post-conviction review when it utilized the prefatory phrase "in any event” before addressing the merits of the Ake claim. See Sochor, 504 U.S. at 534, 112 S.Ct. 2114 (<HOLDING>). 6 . Of course, if a state court conspicuously
holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue holding that the portion of a state court opinion following the phrase in any event is an alternative holding recognizing ajlthough presiding judge mccormicks opinion in davis  is labeled a concurring opinion it was joined by a majority of the court and may be regarded as an opinion for the court holding that use of phrase shady practitioner to describe lawyer was nonactionable opinion where the article set forth the facts upon which the opinion was based