Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Ex parte Abernathy

Ex parte Abernathy, 320 U.S. 219 (1943)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1943-10-18
Topic
general

Per Curiam. The applications are severally denied. In these cases petitioners invoke the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on this Court by 28 U. S. C. §§ 377, *220451, to issue writs of habeas corpus in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ex parte Abernathy. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
35 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Habeas Corpus — Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court's power to issue writs of habeas corpus in aid of its appellate jurisdiction is discretionary, and save in exceptional circumstances the Court will not exercise that power where an adequate remedy may be had in a lower federal court. 320 U.S. at 219
  2. Habeas Corpus — Exhaustion of State Remedies Where habeas relief is sought from a judgment of a state court, the Supreme Court will not, save in exceptional circumstances, exercise its discretionary power to issue the writ where the petitioner has not exhausted his remedies in the state courts. 320 U.S. at 219
  3. Habeas Corpus — Effect of Denial Refusal of a writ of habeas corpus, without more, is not an adjudication on the merits and is to be taken as without prejudice to an application to any other court for the relief sought. 320 U.S. at 220
EX PARTE ABERNATHY,320 U.S. 219(1943)
64 S.Ct. 13
EX PARTE ABERNATHY.
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.fn*
No. ___.
Decided October 18, 1943.
1. The exercise by this Court of the power conferred upon it to issue writs of habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. § 377,451) in aid of its appellate jurisdiction is discretionary; and, save in exceptional circumstances, the Court does not exercise the power where an adequate remedy may be had in a lower federal court or where, if the relief sought is from a judgment of a state court, the petitioner has not exhausted his remedies in the state courts. P. 219. 2. Refusal of the writ, without more, is not an adjudication on the merits and is to be taken as without prejudice to an application to any other court for the relief sought. P. 220. Applications denied.
PER CURIAM.
The applications are severally denied.

In these cases petitioners invoke the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on this Court by28 U.S.C. § 377,Page 220451, to issue writs of habeas corpus in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Cf.Ex parte Peru,318 U.S. 578,582-3. That jurisdiction is discretionary,id. 584;Bowenv.Johnston,306 U.S. 19,27, and this Court does not, save in exceptional circumstances, exercise it in cases where an adequate remedy may be had in a lower federal court,Ex parte Current,314 U.S. 578;Ex parte Spaulding,317 U.S. 593;Ex parte Hawk,318 U.S. 746, or, if the relief sought is from the judgment of a state court, where the petitioner has not exhausted his remedies in the state courts,Mooneyv.Holohan,294 U.S. 103,115;Ex parte Botwinski,314 U.S. 586;Ex parte Davis,317 U.S. 592,318 U.S. 412;Ex parte Williams,317 U.S. 604. Refusal of the writ, without more, is not an adjudication on the merits and is to be taken as without prejudice to an application to any other court for the relief sought.
  1. Page 219 Together with No. ___,Ex parte Dexter C. Dayton;No. ___,Exparte Frederick T. Hansen and Sam Bonjiorno;No. ___,Ex parteFloyd J. Kesling;No. ___,Ex parte Louis Burall;No. ___,Exparte Oliver Gobin;No. ___,Ex parte Peter J.C. Donnelly;No. ___,Ex parte Alfred Maurice;No. ___,Ex parte SolGoldsmith;No. ___,Ex parte Paul Davis;No. ___,Ex parteRobert Hutto;No. ___,Ex parte Alfred Friters;No. ___,Exparte Wilfred Doza;No. ___,Ex parte R.J. Hughes;and No. ___,Ex parte John Russell Miller,also on motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus. ↩