EX PARTE TRACY, PETITIONER
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 Supreme Court declined to exercise its original habeas corpus jurisdiction to review a petitioner's constitutional claims where other competent courts were available to provide relief and the Court had previously denied leave to file without indicating exceptional circumstances warranted direct Supreme Court intervention. The Court held that absent exceptional conditions, petitioners must exhaust relief available through lower courts before invoking the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in habeas corpus matters.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam:
For the purpose of redressing assumed violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States by means of habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of other competent courts to afford relief may not be passed by and the original jurisdiction of this court be invoked, in the absence of exceptional conditions justifying such course. Matters v. Ryan, ante, 375.
When leave to file the petition for habeas corpus was previously denied, without a suggestion as to the existence of any exceptional condition which would have justified a contrary view, such refusal presumably was based on the existence of the right to seek, if desired, other and appropriate sources of relief. From this it follows that although we pass the application of the doctrine, that the refusal of habeas corpus is not the thing adjudged precluding a subsequent granting of such writ' upon the same facts, nevertheless there is here no reason to grant the order prayed, since the previous order rested upon the right and duty to petition for relief, if habeas corpus was desired, to other and appropriate sources of judicial power. No reason, therefore, exists for granting the motion and to avoid any implication of a necessity which does not obtain, the motion is
Denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Craig v. Hecht, 263 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1923)
-
Chin Wey v. Wixon, 4 F.2d 247 (1st Cir. 1925)…ean Mfg. Co., 249 F. 968, 162 C. C. A. 166; Shapley v. Cohoon (C. C. A.) 263 F. 893; Blumenstock Bros. Advertising Agency v. Curtis Publishing Co., 258 F. 927, 170 C. C. A. 123; Raton Waterworks Co. v. City of Raton, 249 U. S. 552, 39 S. Ct. 384, 63 L. Ed. 768. Had the District Court taken jurisdiction and proceeded to determine the merits, sustaining the petitioner’s claim of citizenship, the respondent would have been entitled to bring the entire case to this court. Tang Tun v. Edsell, 223 U. S. 673,…
-
Berry v. Davis, 15 F.2d 488 (8th Cir. 1926)…w rested solely on the fact that the suit “arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States” (section 24 [1], [11], Judicial Code [section 991 (1), (11), Compiled Statutes]). In Raton Waterworks Co. v. Raton, 249 U. S. 552, 39 S. Ct. 384, 63 L. Ed. 768, decided May 5, 1919, the parties were both corporations of New Mexico, and the jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain the suit was based solely on the ground that it was one arising under the Constitution of the United States. The case was…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence