ROGERS

v.

RICHMOND, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By (17 total)

• Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1963)
  …of Mr. Justice Frankfurter). So-called mixed questions of fact and law, which require the application of a legal standard to the historical-fact determinations, are not facts in this sense. See Thomas v. Arizona, 356 U. S. 390; Rogers v. Richmond, 357 U. S. 220 (denial of certiorari with accompanying statement); United States ex rel. Jennings v. Ragen, 358 U. S. 276 (per curiam); Townsend v. Sain, 359 U. S. 64 (per curiam) (vacating judgment on authority of Jennings v. Ragen, supra). See, e. g., United St…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• FAY v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1963)
  …standing state court review of the merits of these constitutional claims. See Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 478 (opinion of Mr. Justice Reed), 506 (opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter). We accompanied our denial of certiorari in Rogers v. Richmond, 357 U. S. 220, with an opinion in which we said: “. . . while the District Judge may, unless he finds a vital flaw in the State Court proceedings, accept the determination in such proceedings, he need not deem such determination binding, and may take testimony.”…
• Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1961)
  …may, unless he finds a vital flaw in the State Court proceedings, accept the determination in such proceedings, he need not deem such determination binding, and may take testimony. See Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 506, et seq.” Rogers v. Richmond, 357 U. S. 220. Second Federal Habeas Corpus Proceeding. — On remand, the district judge had before him the entire transcript of the state proceedings and on the basis of it dismissed the petition. United States ex rel. Rogers v. Richmond, 178 F. Supp. 69. While…

Authorities Cited

• Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1953)