ROWLAND
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A person out on bond, not in actual custody, is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.
Appellant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus while out on bond and not in actual custody. The trial court dismissed the petition.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
WOODROUGH, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is taken to reverse a judgment o-f the District court which dismissed appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant was “out on bond”, free of any actual restraint and not in custody of any person served with notice at the time he petitioned for habeas corpus and at the time of the trial upon his petition, and the court after full hearing reached and declared its conclusion that the writ was not available to -a person so situated. The reasons for decision and the statutes and precedents relied on by the court are fully set forth in its Memorandum Opinion filed in the case and reported at 85 F.Supp. 550.
Appellant contends that the trial court should have followed a precedent set in the Seventh Circuit in Mackenzie v. Barrett, 141 F. 964, 5 Ann.Cas. 551, where it was held that “one under arrest, but at large on bail is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, the same as if the arrest was accompanied by actual imprisonmentbut as was pointed out by the trial court in its opinion 85 F.Supp. at page 555, that case “may well have been overruled” by the later decision •of the same court in United States ex rel. Walmer v. Tittemore, 61 F. 2d 909, 910, in which it is held “before one can successfully seek a writ of habeas corpus, he must be actually restrained.”
We think that no error in the proceedings and judgment has been shown and that the statutes, precedents and reasoning set forth in the opinion of the trial court fully sustain its judgment. It is accordingly affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Bradford, 194 F.2d 197 (2d Cir. 1952)
-
Strand v. Schmittroth, 251 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1957)
-
Florentine v. Landon, 206 F.2d 870 (9th Cir. 1953)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States ex rel. Walmer v. Tittemore, 61 F.2d 909 (7th Cir. 1932)