PENDLETON & WEBB

v.

WAMBERSIE ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (59 total)

• State ex rel. George J. Deeb v. Fabisinski, 111 Fla. 454 (Fla. 1933)
  …i-recipiendum.” It is not an action or suit but is a summary remedy open to the person detained. It is civil rather than criminal in nature and is a legal and not equitable remedy: See Ex-parte Watkins, supra; Ex-parte Bollman, 4. Cranch (U. S.) 75, 2 L. Ed. 554. The early history of'the writ is very interesting but unimportant in this discussion. It is sufficient to state that [*461] while the writ had been in use in England from remote antiquity it was often assailed by kings who sought tyrannical power…
• Chandler v. Crosby, 916 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2005)
  …,’ and [has] likewise recognized that judgment about the proper scope of the writ are 'normally for Congress to make.' ” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 135 L.Ed.2d 827 (1996) (quoting Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 94, 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807), and Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314, 323, 116 S.Ct. 1293, 134 L.Ed.2d 440 (1996)).…
• Jamason v. State, 447 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
  …t recipiendum.” It is not an action or suit but is a summary remedy open to the person detained. It is civil rather than criminal in nature and is a legal and not equitable remedy. See Ex-parte Watkins, supra; Ex-parte Bollman, 4 Cranch (8 U.S.) 75, 2 L.Ed. 554. [Wjhile the writ had been in use in England from remote antiquity it was often assailed by kings who sought tyrannical power and the benefits of the writ were in a great degree eluded by time-serving judges who assumed a discretionary power in awa…