FAVORS
v.
COINER, ACTING WARDEN

U.S. | 1957-04-29
No. 719
353 U.S. 944 Supreme Court of the United States (1957) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:

Per Curiam:

The Attorney General of West Virginia has agreed that this case should be remanded to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for a hearing to determine the truth of the allegations made in the petition for writ of habeas corpus. If true, the allegations of that petition and the attached affidavit state a deprivation of constitutional rights under Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S.

103. Other contentions of deprivation of constitutional rights are pressed in the brief submitted to this Court on behalf of the petitioner. We express no opinion as to the validity of these contentions, but assume that they will be open to the petitioner on the hearing in the court below. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia is vacated, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 364 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1960)
    …rtificate. There is no contention that the Commission was again indulging in the erroneous notion that it had no power to issue a limited certificate. Cf. Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 239 F. 2d 97, reversed on other grounds, 353 U. S. 944. This procedural formulation seems to us well within the Commission’s discretion as an implementation of the Act’s protective provisions which we have discussed. And, though much urged by petitioner, the fact that the Commission has certificated pip…
    1 / 2
  • Sun Oil Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 364 U.S. 170 (U.S. 1960)
    …5, 1955, in Sunray Oil Corp., 14 F. P. C. 877. It was not until October 29, 1956, that judicial rejection of the Commission’s position occurred.8 Sunray Mid-Continent [*176] Oil Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 239 F. 2d 97, reversed on other grounds, 353 U. S. 944. Nothing in petitioner’s application shows an attempt to take issue with that conception of the Commission, which of course would mean that every certificate granted under its influence would be intended to be permanent. It would surpass belief to s…
    1 / 2
  • Fed. Power Comm'n v. Moss, 424 U.S. 494 (U.S. 1976)
    …of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit had addressed that question at an earlier stage of the litigation and had held that the FPC was authorized to issue such certificates. Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. FPC, 239 F. 2d 97 (1956), rev’d on other grounds, 353 U. S. 944 (1957) (Sunray I). Sunray II implicitly approved this holding in stating, 364 U. S., at 157: “There is no contention that the Commission was again indulging in the erroneous notion that it had no power to issue a limited certificate.” Thus, rather…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 9 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