4,117 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 4,089 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court held that the special inquiry officer did not abuse his discretion in denying the appellant's application for permission to reapply for admission into the United States.
-
The court held that state authorities did not waive their right to enforce a state sentence by releasing a prisoner to federal custody.
-
The court held that a district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner has already pursued and been denied relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, unless the § 2255 remedy is shown to be inadequate or ineffective.
-
The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition should be denied for failure to exhaust state remedies when a newly enacted state statute provides a mechanism for judicial review of the petitioner's current mental condition and potential release.
-
The Florida Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari challenging a District Court of Appeal decision in a habeas corpus case, holding that Section 79.11, F.S.A. (an 1879 statute requiring judicial consent for appeals) is obsolete and has been entirely superseded by the 1956
-
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, as appellant had not presented his federal claims to the Ohio Supreme Court.
-
The court held that the defendant's absence from a hearing where his sentence was affirmed, under 18 U.S.C. § 4208(b), constituted an error requiring remand for a proper hearing, but not grounds to vacate the conviction.
-
330 F.2d 263·
3d Cir.·
1964-04-03
·cited 8×
The court held that a death sentence imposed on a "mental defective" convicted of first-degree murder, after full consideration of his mental condition, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, nor does the Commonwealth's appea
-
The court held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge a sentence that has not yet begun to run.
-
The court held that a petitioner alleging lack of counsel and understanding of a guilty plea is entitled to a hearing.
-
313 F.2d 21·
10th Cir.·
1962-12-22
·cited 8×
The court held that an erroneous early release due to a miscalculation of good time allowances does not divest the Parole Board of jurisdiction to revoke a conditional release.
-
The Florida Supreme Court discharged a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the petitioner's claims of an illegal sentence should be raised through a direct appeal, not habeas corpus, as the time for appeal had not yet expired. The court emphasized that habeas corpus is not a subs
-
The court held that the petitioner's appeal was not taken in good faith and denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
-
275 F.2d 251·
5th Cir.·
1960-02-29
·cited 8×
The court held that the fourth sentence was intended to run consecutively to the cumulative total of the prior three sentences, not concurrently with the second and third.
-
The court held that the applicant's claims did not present a sufficient case to warrant the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, thus denying a certificate of probable cause for appeal.
-
268 F.2d 40·
9th Cir.·
1959-05-28
·cited 8×
The court held that the appellant's claims of coerced admissions, illegal search and seizure, use of false testimony, statutory violations, and denial of appellate review were without merit.
-
The court held that the appellant waived his constitutional right to compulsory process by failing to raise the issue on direct appeal and that habeas corpus cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal.
-
261 F.2d 204·
3d Cir.·
1958-11-20
·cited 8×
A civilian employee serving with the armed forces overseas, even for a capital offense, can be subject to court-martial jurisdiction, distinguishing them from wives accompanying military personnel.
-
The court held that the state was not constitutionally obligated to provide counsel for a non-capital offense, and the trial was not fundamentally unfair.
-
The court held that a writ of mandamus is not appropriate to challenge a removal order when the lower court did not act in excess of its jurisdiction, and that habeas corpus is not a means to test the right to remove, which is final.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the appellant's petitions without a hearing, as the claims raised were substantially the same as those previously litigated and decided.
-
247 F.2d 60·
D.C. Cir.·
1957-04-25
·cited 8×
The court held that the District Court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction, as civil courts have jurisdiction to hear claims of denial of basic constitutional rights in court-martial proceedings.
-
-
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the suit because it presented no substantial federal constitutional question, and affirmed the dismissal.
-
The court held that the habeas corpus petition was without merit because the judgment sufficiently imposed consecutive sentences for a total of 30 years.
-
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a mandamus order requiring the City of Miami Beach to issue a retail vendor's liquor license for a Service Bar restaurant. The Court held that special legislative acts granted the City authority to regulate the method of sale of alcoholic bevera
-
The court held that the petitioner's unintentional return to the United States from foreign waters did not constitute an 'entry' under the Immigration Act of 1917, rendering the deportation order based on a false claim of citizenship upon that return invalid.
-
James Williams, arrested for unarmed robbery and held in jail awaiting trial, sought habeas corpus relief arguing he had been detained without trial for more than three full court terms in violation of Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the discharge order, holding t
-
A motion to correct or vacate a sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 or 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inapplicable when the appellant has not been sentenced for a criminal offense.
-
The court held that the alien failed to meet the burden of proof to show unlawful detention, and thus the Attorney General's discretion to detain without bail was upheld.
-
The court held that a federal court cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus to a military member until all available military appellate remedies have been exhausted.
-
A person out on bond, not in actual custody, is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.
-
The dissenting judge would reverse the order and sustain the writ of habeas corpus due to an inadequate medical certificate and the Board of Medical Officers' failure to comply with regulations.
-
Federal courts require exhaustion of state remedies before issuing a writ of habeas corpus, and Virginia provides adequate state remedies.
-
A district court's refusal to accept a nolo contendere plea under Rule 20 is not a denial of due process, as Rule 11 consent is still required.
-
The court held that the petition should be treated as a writ of error coram nobis, not habeas corpus, and remanded for a hearing on the defendant's alleged insanity at the time of his guilty plea.
-
The court held that the inmate's complaint was properly dismissed for failing to state facts sufficient to entitle him to relief regarding mail restrictions.
-
The court held that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel and a jury trial, and thus his due process rights were not violated.
-
The court held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review alleged mistakes of law or fact that occurred during a conviction, especially when the defendant pleaded guilty and was represented by counsel.
-
The court held that the State of Illinois had the right to return the petitioner involuntarily to serve his sentence.
-
A federal court should not entertain a habeas corpus petition from a state prisoner unless all state remedies, including appellate remedies, have been exhausted, and the case presents exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency.
-
The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing, as the petition itself did not demonstrate entitlement to the writ.
-
This habeas corpus case examines the legality of a five-year prison sentence for pleading guilty to "assault with intent to commit manslaughter." The court determined the sentence was legal under state statutes governing assaults with intent to commit felonies.
-
L. M. Futch, Jr. was convicted of unlawfully withholding support from his minor children and sentenced to a fine or six months imprisonment, with the sentence suspended upon giving a bond conditioned on monthly child support payments of $40. On habeas corpus, Futch challenged the
-
J. L. Goff challenged his felony conviction in habeas corpus proceedings by arguing that the Criminal Court of Record for Suwannee County was established by an unconstitutional act due to improper legislative journal entries. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the
-
Andrew Patterson challenged his detention under a Jacksonville city ordinance requiring racial segregation on streetcars. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the ordinance as a valid exercise of the city's police powers under its charter and rejected Patterson's equal protection cha
-
Barton Thrasher sought a writ of error to challenge the Circuit Court's denial of bail in a murder prosecution. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, establishing that bail should be refused in capital cases only when the evidence is sufficiently strong that a judge woul
-
Brian Hodges petitions for writs of prohibition and habeas corpus challenging a pretrial detention order and judicial disqualification. The Third District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's pretrial detention order, finding that the charges of boating under the influence m
-
Hector Sanchez-Torres, who was sentenced to death for armed robbery and first-degree murder, challenged the denial of his post-conviction motion to vacate his conviction and death sentence and petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower co
-
The court granted the State's motion to dismiss a pro se habeas corpus petition. The dismissal was based on two grounds: the petitioner was simultaneously represented by counsel in another pending appeal, and the petition's claim of manifest injustice lacked merit.