CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ET AL.

v.

DADE COUNTY; SMITH V. UNITED STATES; GEORGES V. UNITED STATES; REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES; MOKUS V. UNITED STATES; MASSENGALE V. CINCINNATI BAR ASSN.; GREEN V. ELLIS, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR; ROBINSON V. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD CO.

Citator

Cited By

• United States ex rel. Alvin R. Drew v. Myers, 327 F.2d 174 (3d Cir. 1964)
  …amount to a denial of due process, or that some basic fundamental error was committed which deprived defendant of one of his constitutional rights, relief may be sought by habeas corpus.” . In re Ernst, 294 F. 2d 556, 561 (3 Cir. 1981), cert. den. 368 U.S. 917, 82 S.Ct. 198, 7 L.Ed.2d 132 (1961). . See concurring opinion in United States ex rel. Auld v. Warden of New Jersey State Penitentiary, 187 F. 2d 615, 621 (3 Cir. 1951). . Id. 187 F. 2d at 620. . Section 2241 states: “§ 2241. Poioer to grant wri…
• Sims v. Eyman, 405 F.2d 439 (9th Cir. 1969)
  …e do not view the difference between sentencing procedures of which the defendant complains as the kind of arbitrary and unreasonable differentiation which the equal protection clause forbids.” In re Ernst, 294 F. 2d 556, 561 (3 Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 917, 82 S.Ct. 198, 7 L.Ed.2d 132 (1961). As stated above, the states have wide discretion in determining their own rules of criminal procedure. “The States have always been given wide leeway in dividing responsibility between judge and jury in criminal…
• United States ex rel. Carl Melton v. Hendrick, 330 F.2d 263 (3d Cir. 1964)
  …es with respect to his contention that he had been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of federal constitutional rights. On that score we need only say that in In re Ernst’s Petition, 294 F. 2d 556, pp. 561, 562 (1961), cert. den. 368 U.S. 917, 82 S.Ct. 198, 7 L.Ed.2d 132, we expressly held that: “Denial of a state prisoner’s petition for habeas corpus on its merits remains permissible under Section 2241 even though state remedies may not have been exhausted.” We recently re-affirmed that…