MCINTOSH EX REL. MCINTOSH
v.
STEELE
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.
The court held that the father's argument regarding the invalidity of the statutes under the Christoffel doctrine was without merit.
Wade Hampton McIntosh petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus for his son, Charles L. McIntosh, who was imprisoned under sentences based on specific fe…
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying the petition of Wade Hampton McIntosh for a writ of habeas corpus for the release of his son, Charles L. McIntosh, from the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, at Springfield, Missouri. The son of the appellant is the Charles Lee McIntosh referred to in the opinion of this Court, McIntosh v. Steele, Warden, 184 F. 2d 721, affirming an order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts relative to his detention are stated in that opinion.
The appellant’s contention is that the statutes upon which the sentences under which his son is confined in the United States Medical Center at Springfield were based, namely, § 408, Title 18 U.S.C., and § 753h, Title 18 U.S.C.,1 were invalid under what he calls the “Christoffel doctrine.” See Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84, 69 S.Ct. 1447.
Assuming, without deciding, that a father may apply for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of an adult son who is able to speak for himself and persistently does so, the appellant is clearly mistaken in believing that the ruling of the Supreme Court in Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84, 69 S.Ct. 1447, either requires or would justify the invalidation of the statutes for the violation of which Charles Lee McIntosh was sentenced to imprisonment.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
. 1948 Revised Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2311-2313 and § 751.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McINTOSH v. United States, 341 F.2d 448 (8th Cir. 1965)
-
Freeman v. Lester Coggins Trucking, Inc., 771 F.2d 860 (5th Cir. 1985)
-
McINTOSH v. Steele, 184 F.2d 721 (8th Cir. 1950)
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
- Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1949)
- McINTOSH v. Steele, 184 F.2d 721 (8th Cir. 1950)