Habeas Corpus

18,787 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 3,112 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States ex rel. McLEOD v. Garfinkel
  202 F.2d 392· 3d Cir.· 1953-03-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by relying on evidence not presented in the habeas corpus proceeding, including an ex parte return and testimony from a prior proceeding.
• In re Rice
  62 So. 2d 911· Fla.· 1953-01-30 ·cited 4×
  A Florida newspaper publisher challenged his criminal libel prosecution on the grounds that the prosecutor failed to provide the statutory pre-suit notice required by Section 836.07. The Florida Supreme Court held that written notice is a condition precedent to criminal libel pro
• United States ex rel. MacBLAIN v. Burke
  200 F.2d 616· 3d Cir.· 1952-12-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding denial of parole opportunity and illegal sentence aggregation are not grounds for habeas corpus relief because he had available state remedies and his parole violation would result in serving the same sentence.
• Baumhoff v. United States
  200 F.2d 769· 10th Cir.· 1952-11-25 ·cited 4×
  A prisoner on parole is not entitled to good time credit for the period spent on parole.
• Porch v. Cagle
  199 F.2d 865· 5th Cir.· 1952-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a federal court cannot grant habeas corpus relief unless state remedies have been exhausted, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate such exhaustion.
• Booth v. United States
  198 F.2d 991· 9th Cir.· 1952-08-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue an order to show cause against the U.S. Marshal, but the denial of the habeas corpus application is sustained because the petitioner is lawfully held under a valid state sentence.
• Weldgen v. Weldgen
  62 So. 2d 420· Fla.· 1952-07-15 ·cited 4×
• Lyle v. Eidson
  197 F.2d 327· 8th Cir.· 1952-06-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an appeal from a denial of state prisoner habeas corpus relief is not reviewable without a certificate of probable cause.
• In re Abramson
  196 F.2d 261· 3d Cir.· 1952-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an induction order is not legally 'mailed' if it is not properly addressed, and a registrant's right to reclassification based on pregnancy is preserved if proof is filed before the board properly mails the order.
• Sohaiby v. Savoretti
  195 F.2d 139· 5th Cir.· 1952-03-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the appellant presented a strong humanitarian case, the undisputed facts provided a legal basis for her exclusion under immigration law, and thus, no legal relief could be granted.
• Maktos v. Matthews
  194 F.2d 354· D.C. Cir.· 1952-01-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellants were legally held for extradition because they failed to prove they were not fugitives from North Carolina.
• United States Ex rel. Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding
  192 F.2d 1009· 2d Cir.· 1951-12-04 ·cited 4×
  A resident alien seeking readmission is subject to the same exclusion provisions as a first-time entrant, and exclusion orders are not stayed by pending naturalization petitions.
• Speller v. Allen
  192 F.2d 477· 4th Cir.· 1951-11-05 ·cited 4×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Federal courts should not ordinarily re-examine questions already adjudicated by state courts and denied certiorari by the Supreme Court, absent unusual circumstances.
• Smith v. Reid
  191 F.2d 491· D.C. Cir.· 1951-07-12 ·cited 4×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a petition for writ of habeas corpus is not available when a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was an adequate and effective remedy, even if unsuccessful.
• Facchine v. Hunter
  190 F.2d 200· 10th Cir.· 1951-06-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prison Good Time board had the authority to forfeit statutory and earned good time for falsifying payroll records, even if the conduct also constituted a crime.
• Swope v. Mugavero
  188 F.2d 601· 9th Cir.· 1951-04-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the sentences imposed for stealing from separate trucks constituted distinct offenses, thus not violating double jeopardy principles.
• Soulia v. O'Brien
  188 F.2d 233· 1st Cir.· 1951-04-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the state's ballistics expert did not commit perjury was warranted, thus the habeas petition's main claim failed.
• Willis v. Utecht
  185 F.2d 210· 8th Cir.· 1950-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that applicants had not exhausted their state remedies because they failed to follow the proper procedural steps for seeking a writ of habeas corpus in Minnesota courts.
• Nash v. MacARTHUR
  184 F.2d 606· D.C. Cir.· 1950-07-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that non-citizens, including enemy aliens convicted by military commissions, cannot prosecute appeals in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
• Goldstein v. Johnson
  184 F.2d 342· D.C. Cir.· 1950-07-03 ·cited 4×
  The District Court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the court-martial proceedings because the appellant was not in confinement.
• Cooper v. Cranor
  182 F.2d 256· 9th Cir.· 1950-05-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the applicant failed to exhaust his state remedies by not seeking certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court after his state habeas petition was denied.
• Pinkerton v. Steele
  181 F.2d 536· 8th Cir.· 1950-04-26 ·cited 4×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a district court cannot entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner has not first applied to the sentencing court for vacation of the sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
• Wilson v. Hunter
  180 F.2d 456· 10th Cir.· 1950-02-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the aggregate of sentences for good time calculation is the total time a prisoner is required to serve, not the sum of all sentences if some run concurrently.
• Tucker v. Howard
  177 F.2d 494· 7th Cir.· 1949-10-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying petitions for writs of habeas corpus, especially given the contradictory testimony.
• Kaminer v. Clark
  177 F.2d 51· D.C. Cir.· 1949-07-11 ·cited 4×
  The District Court properly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction because a declaratory judgment action cannot substitute for habeas corpus to confer jurisdiction on a district other than where the applicant is confined.
• Miller v. Hudspeth
  176 F.2d 111· 10th Cir.· 1949-07-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus petition and did not abuse its discretion in considering the case on its merits, finding no constitutional violation.
• United States ex rel. Hoehn v. Shaughnessy
  175 F.2d 116· 2d Cir.· 1949-06-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the alien's removal order was valid and that the stipulation did not prevent administrative action following judicial determination.
• Commack v. Bush
  175 F.2d 128· 6th Cir.· 1949-06-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant failed to exhaust state remedies and his petition for habeas corpus did not state a cause of action.
• Flick v. Johnson
  174 F.2d 983· D.C. Cir.· 1949-05-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the tribunal that tried and sentenced the petitioner was not a tribunal of the United States, and therefore the District Court lacked the power to review its judgment.
• Gault v. Burford
  173 F.2d 813· 10th Cir.· 1949-03-28 ·cited 4×
  The trial court's judgment, based on according weight to the state court's due process adjudication, is affirmed.
• Young v. Matthews
  174 F.2d 35· D.C. Cir.· 1949-03-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence presented clearly and satisfactorily showed the appellant was not in the demanding state at the time of the murder, thus he could not be a fugitive from justice.
• United States ex rel. Adams v. Ragen
  172 F.2d 693· 7th Cir.· 1949-02-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a petitioner's voluntary and intelligent guilty plea, even without counsel of choice, does not violate due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the trial court's refusal to grant a continuance was not error given competent representation.
• United States ex rel. Russo v. Thompson
  172 F.2d 325· 2d Cir.· 1949-02-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the relator's various contentions regarding his detention and exclusion proceedings lacked merit, and the dismissal orders were affirmed.
• Brown v. Hunter
  172 F.2d 487· 10th Cir.· 1949-01-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a recommendation for clemency, made after sentencing, does not invalidate the sentence or show a lack of required concurrence for the original sentence.
• Flynn v. United States
  172 F.2d 12· 9th Cir.· 1949-01-10 ·cited 4×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the indictments were sufficient and that the evidence supported the conviction for perjury, as the defendant's testimony denying a prior conviction was demonstrably false.
• United States ex rel. United States Lines v. Watkins
  170 F.2d 998· 2d Cir.· 1948-12-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the inspector's action in detaining the seaman for deportation was arbitrary and capricious, lacking sufficient basis in the seaman's actual conduct and intent.
• Bauer v. Watkins
  171 F.2d 492· 2d Cir.· 1948-12-02 ·cited 4×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the alien should not be deported under the Act of 1798 on the ground that he is a German citizen, and the writ should be sustained on the record as it stands, but allowed for a retrial if the respondent desires.
• Lee v. Tucker
  160 Fla. 962· Fla.· 1948-11-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the criminal information was insufficient because it failed to allege a direct criminal connection or communication between the petitioner and the person who actually committed the arson.
• Houvardas v. Wixon
  169 F.2d 980· 9th Cir.· 1948-09-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an alien ordered deported under the Act of February 5, 1917, is deportable immediately upon release from confinement, even if parole is granted, and the availability of a future pardon does not preclude deportation.
• Mart v. Lainson
  169 F.2d 1016· 8th Cir.· 1948-09-27 ·cited 4×
  Federal courts will not ordinarily re-examine questions adjudicated on the merits by state courts, even after exhaustion of state remedies, unless exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency are shown.
• Griffin v. Clemmer
  D.D.C.· 1948-07-19 ·cited 4×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the prosecutor's failure to disclose the presence of a knife did not prejudice the appellant's trial, as the evidence did not support his self-defense claim.
• Askins v. Overholser
  170 F.2d 815· D.C. Cir.· 1948-05-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's motion for reconsideration and leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied because the District Court's certification that the appeal was not taken in good faith was warranted, and this court cannot settle the record.
• United States ex rel. Forino v. Garfinkel
  166 F.2d 887· 3d Cir.· 1948-03-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the alien was not entitled to the status of a legislative pardon because the statute providing for such pardons was repealed before he completed his sentence, and the repeal did not constitute an ex post facto law.
• United States ex rel. Thompson v. Nierstheimer
  166 F.2d 87· 7th Cir.· 1948-02-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a one-day trial in a capital case, while expeditious, does not inherently deny due process if the defendant is represented by counsel of choice and afforded a fair trial. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• State v. Sullivan
  160 Fla. 115· Fla.· 1948-02-03 ·cited 4×
  Robert James Carroll petitioned for habeas corpus challenging his commitment for civil contempt for non-payment of alimony, arguing the commitment order was vague and violated due process. The Florida Supreme Court held that contempt orders in family matters could be reviewed by
• Elwood v. Smith
  164 F.2d 449· 9th Cir.· 1947-12-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding illegal search and seizure and the admission of involuntary statements were matters for state courts to resolve and did not violate federal rights.
• Gann v. Pescor
  164 F.2d 113· 8th Cir.· 1947-11-18 ·cited 4×
  A prisoner is not deprived of liberty without due process if counsel is appointed after arraignment and plea, provided counsel has adequate time to protect the prisoner's rights before sentencing.
• Appel v. Overholser
  164 F.2d 511· D.C. Cir.· 1947-11-10 ·cited 4×
  The trial court was not required to submit the question of petitioner's mental condition to the Commission on Mental Health before decision.
• United States ex rel. Flakowicz v. Alexander
  164 F.2d 139· 2d Cir.· 1947-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the relator had not exhausted his administrative remedies by refusing to report for induction, making the Falbo rule applicable in his criminal trial.
• United States ex rel. Monsky v. Warden of Clinton State Prison
  163 F.2d 978· 2d Cir.· 1947-11-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that federal courts will not ordinarily reexamine questions already adjudicated by state courts if the Supreme Court has reviewed or declined to review the state court's decision, absent exceptional circumstances.