REID
v.
JONES

U.S. | 1902-12-01
No. 147
187 U.S. 153 Supreme Court of the United States (1902) Caution
Also reported at: 47 L. Ed. 116 · 23 S. Ct. 89 · 1902 U.S. LEXIS 802 · SCDB 1902-008
Cited by 46 cases

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.

Synopsis

A state prisoner convicted in Colorado state court sought federal habeas corpus relief in the federal Circuit Court, which remanded him to state custody. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a state convict challenging his detention as unconstitutional must first exhaust state court remedies by appealing to the state's highest court before seeking federal habeas corpus review, except in exceptional circumstances.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Me. Justice Haelah

Mr. Justice Haelah delivered the opinion of the court.

After the appellant Eeid had been convicted and sentenced, as shown in the case just decided, he was arrested upon a mit-timus sued out by the State. He immediately obtained a writ of habeas corpus from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. But that court, upon hearing, remanded the prisoner to the custody of the State authorities, and dismissed his application to be discharged. He thereupon prayed and was allowed an appeal to this court.

The merits of this case have been fully considered in case No. 269, Reid v. Colorado, ante, 137. But if this had not been, we should dismiss the present appeal; for, one convicted in a State court for an alleged violation of the criminal statutes of the State, and who contends that he is held in violation of the Constitution of the United States, must ordinarily first take his case to the highest court of the State, in which the judgment could be reviewed, and thence bring it, if unsuccessful there, to this court by writ of error; that only in certain exceptional cases, of which the present is not one, will a Circuit Court of •the Unitéd States, or this court upon appeal from a Circuit Court, intervene by writ of habeas corpus in advance of the final action by the highest court of the State. Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, 251; New York v. Eno, 155 U. S. 89; Minnesota v. Brundage, 180 U. S. 499, 502, and authorities cited.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

  • FAY v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1963)
    …Bouvier ed., 1856), B 11. Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183, 194-195. See, e. g., Ex parte Fonda, 117 U. S. 516; In re Wood, 140 U. S. 278; Pepke v. Cronan, 155 U. S. 100; In re Frederick, 149 U. S. 70; Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 231; Reid v. Jones, 187 U. S. 153; United States ex rel. Drury v. Lewis, 200 U. S. 1; Pettibone v. Nichols, 203 U. S. 192; Ex parte Simon, 208 U. S. 144; Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245. “An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judg…
  • Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908)
    …he power has been fully recognized in all. Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241; In re Loney, 134 U. S. 372; In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1; Baker v. Grice, 169 U. S. 284; Ohio v. Thomas, 173 U. S. 276; Minnesota v. Brundage, 180 U. S. 499, 502; Reid v. Jones, 187 U. S. 153; United States v. Lewis, 200 U. S. 1; In re Lincoln, 202 U. S. 178; Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179. It is somewhat difficult to appreciate the distinction which, while admitting that the taking of such a person, from the. custody of the State by…
  • Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1950)
    …In re Frederick, 149 U. S. 70, 77-78; New York v. Eno, 155 U. S. 89, 98; Pepke v. Cronan, 155 U. S. 100; Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 231, 242; Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 101, 104-105; Minnesota v. Brundage, 180 U. S. 499, 503; Reid v. Jones, 187 U. S. 153; Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179, 181-82; United States ex rel. Kennedy v. Tyler, 269 U. S. 13, 17. 169 U. S. 284, 291. 175 U. S. 184, 187. Ex parte Spencer, 228 U. S. 652, 660-61. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U. S. 63, 70. 294 U. S. 103. The poi…

Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw