Habeas Corpus

18,781 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Grisham v. The United States
  392 F.2d 980· Ct. Cl.· 1968-04-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff's suit for salary is barred by the doctrine of laches due to his significant delay in filing the action after learning of his removal.
• United States ex rel. John J. Molloy v. Follette
  391 F.2d 231· 2d Cir.· 1968-02-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the state's record was deficient in establishing probable cause for the arrest, requiring a hearing.
• Williams v. Patterson
  389 F.2d 374· 10th Cir.· 1968-01-31 ·cited 26×
  The denial of counsel at a parole revocation hearing does not violate federal constitutional rights when the sentence has already been imposed.
• LEE v. United States
  388 F.2d 737· 9th Cir.· 1968-01-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose the existence of an eyewitness to the crime or flight, when identity is at issue and the defendant has specifically requested such information, creates a prima facie case of suppressed evidence, shifting the burden to the g
• Gladden v. Frazier
  388 F.2d 777· 9th Cir.· 1968-01-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the prosecutor's opening statement referencing expected testimony that later did not materialize did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights, nor did the admission of the defendant's written statement. The search and seizure of the defendant's belong
• Wilson v. Wiman
  386 F.2d 968· 6th Cir.· 1967-12-11 ·cited 26×
• Chen v. Foley
  385 F.2d 929· 6th Cir.· 1967-12-08 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of discretionary relief for adjustment of status, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Zaffarano v. Olin G. Blackwell
  383 F.2d 719· 5th Cir.· 1967-08-31 ·cited 26×
  Time served under a previous invalid sentence does not automatically credit against a subsequently reduced sentence for the same offense, especially when the reduction order specifies a new commencement date.
• Greer v. Beto
  379 F.2d 923· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant may have been denied effective assistance of counsel at his trial on the merits due to the complete absence of medical testimony on his sanity, despite the issue being submitted to the jury.
• Molignaro v. Dutton
  373 F.2d 729· 5th Cir.· 1967-03-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the record did not sufficiently demonstrate that the defendant was adequately informed of his right to appointed counsel, thus the waiver of that right was not intelligent or complete.
• McGARRY v. Fogliani
  370 F.2d 42· 9th Cir.· 1966-12-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a claim regarding prior convictions affecting punishment is not a separate offense and that the judge's determination of prior convictions does not violate the Constitution. Furthermore, failure to perfect an appeal is not a ground for federal habeas corpus wi
• King v. Louie L. Wainwright
  368 F.2d 57· 5th Cir.· 1966-10-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court's denial of the writ of habeas corpus was correct, affirming the judgment.
• McNEIL v. State OF N.C. & Major William C. Brown
  368 F.2d 313· 4th Cir.· 1966-09-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the petitioner did not waive his constitutional right to a jury free from systematic exclusion of Negroes, as waiver requires an intentional relinquishment of a known right.
• Jones v. Crouse
  360 F.2d 157· 10th Cir.· 1966-04-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that an inordinate delay in processing a state appeal may constitute a denial of due process, requiring a federal habeas hearing.
• Harlan Lynn Noble v. Sigler
  351 F.2d 673· 8th Cir.· 1965-11-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a state court's failure to sua sponte order a sanity hearing, even with awareness of a defendant's history of mental difficulty, does not violate due process if the defendant was represented by counsel and did not request such a hearing. Federal courts can det
• Townsend v. Bomar
  351 F.2d 499· 6th Cir.· 1965-10-16 ·cited 26×
  The court should affirm the judgment because the trial judge was competent, appointed counsel was effective, and appellants had adequate time and opportunity to prepare for trial.
• Mervin A. Gajewski v. Stevens
  346 F.2d 1000· 8th Cir.· 1965-06-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus petition because the defendant failed to allege or show that the remedy under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 was unavailable or inadequate.
• State of Fla. ex rel. Marvin D. Byrd v. Howard "Andy" Anderson
  168 So. 2d 554· Fla. 1st DCA· 1964-11-17 ·cited 26×
  Marvin Byrd petitioned for habeas corpus challenging a contempt sentence requiring him to pay past-due child support or remain in jail indefinitely. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that indefinite civil contempt sentences violate Florida law and that the cont
• Evans v. Cunningham
  335 F.2d 491· 4th Cir.· 1964-08-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition need not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies if the state courts have already authoritatively ruled on the identical substantive issue in a prior case, rendering further state court application futile.
• United States ex rel. Charles Townsend v. Ogilvie
  334 F.2d 837· 7th Cir.· 1964-07-22 ·cited 26×
  A federal court exhausts its statutory power in a habeas corpus proceeding after determining a confession introduced in a state criminal trial was voluntarily given; it cannot issue a writ for procedural errors not involving constitutional rights.
• Turner v. State OF Md.
  318 F.2d 852· 4th Cir.· 1963-06-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while the appointed attorney's conduct was neglectful, the prisoner's conviction would not be invalidated because the prisoner had no helpful information to communicate and admitted his involvement.
• Lane v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  320 F.2d 179· 4th Cir.· 1963-06-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that informing the jury of a defendant's prior convictions at the outset of a trial, as part of the indictment, denies the defendant due process of law and a fair trial.
• Greene v. Mich. Dep't OF Corr.
  315 F.2d 546· 6th Cir.· 1963-04-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a habeas corpus petition without a hearing when the pleadings raised factual issues regarding the parole authorities' diligence in executing a parole violation warrant.
• Clarke v. Blackburn
  151 So. 2d 325· Fla. 2d DCA· 1963-03-20 ·cited 26×
  George F. Clarke appeals his extradition to North Carolina on a non-support charge. The court holds that Clarke cannot be extradited because Florida law does not impose a duty of support on putative fathers absent a judicial determination under the exclusive statutory procedure,
• Near v. Cunningham
  313 F.2d 929· 4th Cir.· 1963-01-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the petitioner's absence from a conference where the jury's separation was decided, combined with allegations of prejudicial outside influences on the jury, raises constitutional issues requiring further review. The district court erred in denying the writ wit
• Vellucci v. Cochran
  138 So. 2d 510· Fla.· 1962-03-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the state's failure to provide notice to a minor's parents, despite allegations the minor lied about his age, renders the conviction and sentence void.
• Halprin v. United States
  295 F.2d 458· 9th Cir.· 1961-10-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus proceeding and that the statutory denial of parole for certain narcotics offenses does not violate the Eighth Amendment or the Due Process Clause.
• State ex rel. Fred M. FOX v. Cochran
  126 So. 2d 883· Fla.· 1961-02-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the failure to provide notice to a minor's parent or guardian, or designated relative/friend, as required by statute, renders the incarceration illegal.
• Hurley v. Reed
  288 F.2d 844· D.C. Cir.· 1961-02-02 ·cited 26×
  A prisoner may use a declaratory judgment action to challenge parole revocation, even if habeas corpus is available in the district of confinement, under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Matter of the Petition for Adoption of an Infant by Richard T. Vermeulen and Lucille P. Vermeulen. Anson A. Carrier v. Vermeulen
  122 So. 2d 318· Fla. 1st DCA· 1960-07-19 ·cited 26×
  In this custody case, the appellate court addressed a trial judge's refusal to comply with the court's mandate awarding custody of a minor child to her biological father. The court held that a trial judge has no discretion to reject or delay implementing an appellate court's mand
• Moon v. United States
  272 F.2d 530· D.C. Cir.· 1959-11-05 ·cited 26×
  A motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis is insufficient on its face if the alleged errors are not of a fundamental character that rendered the proceeding irregular and invalid, and do not involve claims of perjury forming the basis of the conviction.
• United States ex rel. TOM MAN v. Murff
  264 F.2d 926· 2d Cir.· 1959-03-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that deportation to mainland China requires a preliminary inquiry into the Communist Chinese government's willingness to accept the alien, as mandated by statute.
• Gray v. Ellis
  257 F.2d 159· 5th Cir.· 1958-06-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the petitioner's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel did not present a prima facie showing of unfairness requiring a federal habeas hearing, as counsel was appointed and the petitioner refused their services.
• Dickenson v. Colonel James W. Davis
  245 F.2d 317· 10th Cir.· 1957-05-16 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the military had jurisdiction over the appellant and that his claims of unconstitutionality and denial of due process were matters for military courts to resolve, not federal habeas corpus.
• Collins v. State
  83 So. 2d 6· Fla.· 1955-09-16 ·cited 26×
  Collins and Caminas appealed their guilty pleas and sentences for operating a gambling room, arguing they were misled about sentencing and that the trial judge lacked authority to modify their sentences after adjournment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appel
• Madigan v. Selvie W. Wells
  224 F.2d 577· 9th Cir.· 1955-07-18 ·cited 26×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition after a prior motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied.
• Hill v. United States
  223 F.2d 699· 6th Cir.· 1955-06-30 ·cited 26×
  A motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal to review a factual determination of competency to stand trial that was previously adjudicated.
• Irvin v. Chapman
  75 So. 2d 591· Fla.· 1954-11-05 ·cited 26×
  Walter Lee Irvin petitioned for habeas corpus to overturn his conviction and sentence, arguing that the death of a codefendant suppressed evidence favorable to his defense and that the state improperly withheld medical testimony. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition, hol
• Sneed v. Mayo
  69 So. 2d 653· Fla.· 1954-01-15 ·cited 26×
  Sneed sought habeas corpus relief to challenge his conviction for breaking and entering, claiming he was denied trial by jury and counsel despite not being competent to waive those rights. The Florida Supreme Court held that although the trial court failed to comply with statutor
• Harris v. Ellis
  204 F.2d 685· 5th Cir.· 1953-05-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that an appeal from a state court detention habeas corpus proceeding cannot be taken without a certificate of probable cause.
• Clough v. Hunter
  191 F.2d 516· 10th Cir.· 1951-07-16 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus application because Section 2255 provided an adequate remedy.
• Jones v. Pescor
  169 F.2d 853· 8th Cir.· 1948-09-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a claim of being compelled to testify against oneself in violation of the Fifth Amendment is of such fundamental nature that it requires examination, even on habeas corpus.
• Biron v. Collins
  145 F.2d 758· 5th Cir.· 1944-11-09 ·cited 26×
  A registrant cannot seek a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his classification or orders before he has been inducted into service or taken into actual physical custody.
• Johnson v. Hunter
  144 F.2d 565· 10th Cir.· 1944-08-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner's application to appeal in forma pauperis because the petition lacked merit and the trial court's certification of bad faith was made in good faith.
• United States ex rel. Reel v. Badt
  141 F.2d 845· 2d Cir.· 1944-04-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellate tribunals' affirmation of the 1-A classification was insufficient to determine if they adopted the hearing officer's findings, requiring a remand for clarification.
• United States ex rel. Innes v. Hiatt
  141 F.2d 664· 3d Cir.· 1944-03-15 ·cited 26×
  A civil court may review a court-martial proceeding via habeas corpus to determine if fundamental fairness, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, was violated.
• Ex parte Rosier
  133 F.2d 316· D.C. Cir.· 1942-09-02 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge argues that the trial court did not err in denying a habeas corpus petition for a sanity hearing without a formal hearing. The petition, when considered with prior court records showing recent adverse adjudications of insanity, did not present a sufficient ba
• Curtis v. Rives
  123 F.2d 936· D.C. Cir.· 1941-12-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's claims of denial of confrontation and compulsory process rights were not supported by the record, and thus the writ of habeas corpus was properly denied.
• Casebeer v. Hudspeth
  121 F.2d 914· 10th Cir.· 1941-08-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the petitioner's allegations of conspiracy, perjured testimony, insufficient evidence, and denial of compulsory process did not establish a violation of due process or Sixth Amendment rights sufficient to warrant habeas corpus relief.
• Lovvorn v. Johnston
  118 F.2d 704· 9th Cir.· 1941-03-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a habeas petitioner's allegations of counsel's withdrawal without court consent, if not factually supported and if the petitioner was present at sentencing, do not establish a Sixth Amendment violation requiring discharge.