Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction

228 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Burns v. Welch
  159 F.2d 29· D.C. Cir.· 1947-01-13 ·cited 8×
  The District Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus because the named respondent, the superintendent of the Reformatory, resides outside the District of Columbia and cannot be served.
• Houston Keen v. Murray
  75 Fla. 154· Fla.· 1918-01-28 ·cited 8×
  Houston Keen challenges his detention under a judgment from Lafayette County's County Judge's Court, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because a Justice of the Peace transferred the criminal case to County Judge's Court without proper statutory authority. The Florida Supreme
• United States ex rel. Raymond Myers v. Smith
  444 F.2d 75· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-14 ·cited 7×
  A petitioner is not 'in custody' for a fully served sentence for purposes of federal habeas corpus when the petition is filed after release and while incarcerated for an unrelated conviction.
• De Long v. Hennessey
  912 F.2d 1144· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while federal courts have inherent power to enjoin vexatious litigants, such orders require notice, an adequate record, substantive findings of frivolousness or harassment, and must be narrowly tailored; otherwise, they are an abuse of discretion.
• Cook v. Norm Maleng
  847 F.2d 616· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-02 ·cited 6×
  A prisoner is considered 'in custody' for habeas corpus purposes to challenge a prior conviction if that conviction was used to enhance a current or future sentence, even if the sentence for the prior conviction has expired.
• Marks v. Rees
  715 F.2d 372· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal district court in Indiana lacked jurisdiction to hear a habeas petition challenging a prior Indiana conviction, as the petitioner was in custody in Kentucky and Indiana had no interest in his present confinement.
• Reinstein v. Superior Court Dep't OF the Trial Court OF Mass.
  661 F.2d 255· 1st Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court erred by declaring a mistrial without sufficiently exploring alternatives, thus violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Jasper C. Pressley v. Swain
  515 F.2d 1290· D.C. Cir.· 1975-07-09 ·cited 6×
• Lieutenant John A. Strait v. Laird
  464 F.2d 205· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's late assertion of conscientious objector beliefs, while a close question, was not sufficient on its own to support a finding of insincerity.
• Trammell v. State
  369 So. 3d 1155· Fla. 2d DCA· 2024-04-05 ·cited 4×
  The State of Florida appealed a trial court's dismissal of a concealed firearm charge, arguing the court misinterpreted Florida's private conveyance exception to the concealed weapons statute. The appellate court agreed, holding that even a securely encased firearm cannot be carr
• Thourtman v. Junior
  275 So. 3d 726· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-06-12 ·cited 4×
  Article I, section 14 of the Florida Constitution does not require a trial court to make a preliminary finding of "proof evident, presumption great" at first appearance in order to detain a defendant charged with a capital or life offense for a reasonable time pending a full Arth
• Roldan v. Racette
  984 F.2d 85· 2d Cir.· 1993-01-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner was no longer in custody and had departed the United States after a deportation order was issued, rendering the appeal moot and the statutory bar applicable.
• Brittingham v. United States
  982 F.2d 378· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the U.S. Marshal for the District of Hawaii was not the petitioner's custodian for habeas corpus purposes, and thus the district court lacked personal jurisdiction.
• Pope v. The United States Parole Comm'n
  647 F.2d 125· 10th Cir.· 1981-04-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Parole Commission's designation of a case as 'original jurisdiction' does not violate a prisoner's due process rights, even if a liberty interest in parole exists.
• Calley v. Callaway
  497 F.2d 1384· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-19 ·cited 4×
• Orito v. Sanger Powers
  479 F.2d 435· 7th Cir.· 1973-05-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus for a prisoner confined outside its territorial jurisdiction, and that the publication in question was not obscene as a matter of law under the First Amendment.
• Major William L. Muller, Jr. v. Melvin Laird as Secretary of Defense
  474 F.2d 999· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner remained under the effective custody of the Fifth United States Army.
• Sutton v. Laird
  468 F.2d 1376· 10th Cir.· 1972-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The district court had jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus action because the serviceman had sufficient meaningful contacts with the dispatching station within its territorial limits.
• Hoover v. C. V. "Buster" Kern
  466 F.2d 543· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that habeas corpus jurisdiction was established because the Army's actions in arresting and detaining the petitioner within the district constituted sufficient contact, following Strait v. Laird.
• Dillworth v. Barker
  465 F.2d 1338· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-10 ·cited 4×
  A parolee supervised by a receiving state is considered 'in custody' for habeas corpus purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but jurisdiction may be declined on forum non conveniens grounds.
• Still v. Commanding Officer
  463 F.2d 991· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court possessed habeas corpus jurisdiction to review the Army's denial of a conscientious objector discharge, despite the petitioner not being in custody within the district.
• Thacker v. Peyton
  419 F.2d 1377· 4th Cir.· 1969-07-25 ·cited 4×
  A federal court has habeas corpus jurisdiction to hear a challenge to fully served sentences that delay the service of subsequent sentences, even if immediate release is not warranted.
• Grover A. Giles and J. J. Ferrin v. Merrill
  322 F.2d 786· 10th Cir.· 1963-09-24 ·cited 4×
  The trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner had not exhausted available state court remedies.
• Mayers v. Reno
  977 F. Supp. 1457· S.D. Fla.· 1997-08-25 ·cited 3×
  Federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review final orders of deportation for aliens deportable due to certain criminal offenses, as AEDPA and IIRIRA have divested such jurisdiction, including habeas corpus review.
• Gaffney v. State
  681 So. 2d 1211· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-11-01 ·cited 3×
  Court vacated the trial court's denial of habeas corpus petition because the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction where the defendant was detained in a different county than where the petition was filed.
• ROY v. Honorable James L. Tomlinson
  639 So. 2d 1112· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-07-25 ·cited 3×
  Robert David Roy sought a writ of prohibition challenging an order denying his motion to disqualify County Judge Pierce from hearing his habeas corpus petition. The court held that Judge Pierce lacked statutory authority to preside over habeas corpus matters and that his motion t
• Miller v. Hambrick
  905 F.2d 259· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-25 ·cited 3×
  A prisoner temporarily transferred to another district to testify remains in the custody of the warden of his original place of incarceration for habeas corpus purposes, and a court lacking jurisdiction should transfer the case rather than dismiss it.
• Dowling v. Lee
  68 Fla. 23· Fla.· 1914-06-25 ·cited 3×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a General Court Martial had jurisdiction over a commissioned officer of the National Guard and that a conviction of two charges, one valid and one invalid under state law, did not warrant discharge in habeas corpus proceedings where the valid c
• Luckey v. State
  84 So. 3d 423· Fla. 5th DCA· 2012-03-30 ·cited 2×
  Defendant's appeal of denial of postconviction relief motion was affirmed; claims of ineffective postconviction counsel must be raised via habeas corpus petition in trial court, not on direct appeal.
• Virdie Shavers v. State
  723 So. 2d 371· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-12-30 ·cited 2×
• Collins v. Lou Hesse
  957 F.2d 746· 10th Cir.· 1992-02-18 ·cited 2×
  A prisoner can raise a habeas corpus challenge to a conviction whose sentence has been fully served if that conviction was used to enhance a subsequent sentence the prisoner is currently serving.
• Parette v. A.L. Lockhart
  927 F.2d 366· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while a district court in the district of confinement has habeas jurisdiction over an attack on another state's detainer, the petition was properly dismissed without prejudice because the petitioner failed to exhaust available state remedies in Louisiana.
• Travis v. A.L. Lockhart
  925 F.2d 1095· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the interpretation of state jail time crediting statutes is a matter of state concern, not a proper function of federal habeas corpus jurisdiction.
• Subias v. Meese
  835 F.2d 1288· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-31 ·cited 2×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when the petitioner's custodian is outside the court's jurisdiction and their whereabouts are unknown.
• Hilary Davis v. Page
  714 F.2d 512· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim against the state judges for declaratory and injunctive relief never presented a case or controversy because the underlying dependency proceeding had concluded, rendering the claim moot.
• Milstead v. Rison
  702 F.2d 216· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-04 ·cited 2×
  Texas did not waive jurisdiction over Milstead by transferring him to federal custody, and his constitutional rights were not violated.
• In re the Application of William Sheffield for a Writ of Habeas Corpus v. Cardwell
  621 F.2d 319· 9th Cir.· 1980-03-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction on February 10, the petition was moot because the relief sought had already been granted by another judge.
• McLELLAND v. State
  368 So. 2d 673· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-03-22 ·cited 2×
• Apple v. General Thomas Greer
  554 F.2d 105· 3d Cir.· 1977-04-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal courts should generally defer to military tribunals when a serviceman seeks habeas corpus relief while court-martial proceedings are pending, provided the military system can grant the requested relief.
• Propotnik v. Putman
  538 F.2d 806· 8th Cir.· 1976-07-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition for lack of personal jurisdiction because neither the petitioner nor his custodian was within the court's territorial jurisdiction.
• Harbolt v. Carpenter
  536 F.2d 791· 8th Cir.· 1976-06-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that venue for a habeas corpus petition challenging parole revocation procedures is proper where the custodian (Board of Parole) is found, not necessarily where the prisoner is confined.
• Dillon v. Colonel V. L. Chandler
  452 F.2d 1081· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-29 ·cited 2×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner's custodian was not within its territorial jurisdiction.
• Mead v. Meier
  449 F.2d 732· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner is not within the court's territorial jurisdiction at the time of filing.
• United States ex rel. Jack Kamsler v. Attorney General OF the United States
  430 F.2d 635· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-29 ·cited 2×
  Habeas corpus relief is not available to a petitioner who has been unconditionally discharged from the federal sentence he seeks to challenge.
• Hayes v. Taylor
  324 F.2d 727· 10th Cir.· 1963-12-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a parole violator's warrant issued during parole can be executed during the final 180 days of the sentence, and claims regarding evidence considered and sufficiency do not raise due process issues for habeas corpus.
• Earven v. State
  45 Fla. L. Weekly S96· Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-06-04 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court denied Gary Earven's petition for new appellate counsel and a new appeal, finding his former counsel was not ineffective. The court reasoned that counsel's failure to cite federal authorities or appeal a jury instruction did not fall outside the range of compe
• Jeanty v. Bulger
  204 F. Supp. 2d 1366· S.D. Fla.· 2002-05-17 ·cited 1×
  Haitian nationals rescued from a boat in December 2001 sought habeas corpus relief and injunctive relief challenging their detention pending asylum proceedings. The INS had reversed its general presumption of release for undocumented Haitians arriving in South Florida, requiring
• S.J.D. v. State
  774 So. 2d 33· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-09-27 ·cited 1×
  The trial judge exceeded legal authority by ordering only he could preside over S.J.D.'s detention hearing, overriding statutory time requirements.
• Naylor v. The Superior Court OF the State OF Ariz.
  558 F.2d 1363· 9th Cir.· 1977-08-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the case was moot because the appellee's probation had expired and no collateral consequences flowed from his conviction, thus the district court lacked jurisdiction.
• Mounce v. Knighten
  503 F.2d 967· 5th Cir.· 1974-11-11 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the case must be remanded for an investigation into the facts concerning jurisdiction, as the respondent's authority to produce the petitioner and release him from custody is unclear.