Alabama Vs. Davis

Alabama vs Davis

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1980

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/104886

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/104886
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1980
Case Number: 446 U.S. 903
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Alabama

Respondent

Davis

Excerpt

.....denying the petition for- page 446 u.s. 903 , 904 a writ of habeas corpus. see united states v. munsingwear, 340 u.s. 36 (1950). mr. justice stevens, dissenting. in united states v. munsingwear, 340 u.s. 36, 39 , 106, the court stated that "[t]he established practice of the court in dealing with a civil case from a court in the federal system that has become moot while on its way here or pending our decision on the merits is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss." but that need not be done in this case, first, because respondent davis's petition for a writ of habeas corpus has already been dismissed by the district court on motion by davis after the state's petition for a writ of certiorari had been filed. see supplement to petition for cert. 6 . and second, it should be noted that the judgment of the court of appeals did not order that davis be released from custody, but merely held that his attorneys had failed to discharge their duty to their client, and therefore reversed and remanded the case for a evidentiary hearing to determine whether that failure had prejudiced him. 596 f.2d 1214 , 1223. if such a hearing should one day be held in accordance with the opinion of the court of appeals, and should davis ultimately succeed in getting his conviction vacated, there will still be an opportunity for this court to review any decision on the merits. in the meantime, it is difficult to see what harm would flow to the state if we were simply to let the judgment of the court of appeals stand. there is no realistic possibility that the judgment could "spawn[] any legal consequences." united states v. munsingwear, supra, 340 u.s., at 41. thus, there is no particular justification for this court's intervention. accordingly, i would simply deny the petition for a writ of certiorari. opinion after remand, 667 f.2d 366 .

Full Judgment

ALABAMA v. DAVIS - 446 U.S. 903 (1980)
U.S. Supreme Court ALABAMA v. DAVIS , 446 U.S. 903 (1980)

446 U.S. 903

State of ALABAMA
v.
James G. DAVIS
No. 79-711

Supreme Court of the United States

April 21, 1980

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and that court is directed to remand the case to the District Court with instructions to vacate the order denying the petition for-

Page 446 U.S. 903 , 904

a writ of habeas corpus. See United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36 (1950).

Mr. Justice STEVENS, dissenting.

In United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 39 , 106, the Court stated that

"[t]he established practice of the Court in dealing with a civil case from a court in the federal system that has become moot while on its way here or pending our decision on the merits is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss."

But that need not be done in this case, first, because respondent Davis's petition for a writ of habeas corpus has already been dismissed by the District Court on motion by Davis after the State's petition for a writ of certiorari had been filed. See Supplement to Petition for Cert. 6 . And second, it should be noted that the judgment of the Court of Appeals did not order that Davis be released from custody, but merely held that his attorneys had failed to discharge their duty to their client, and therefore reversed and remanded the case for a evidentiary hearing to determine whether that failure had prejudiced him. 596 F.2d 1214 , 1223. If such a hearing should one day be held in accordance with the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and should Davis ultimately succeed in getting his conviction vacated, there will still be an opportunity for this Court to review any decision on the merits. In the meantime, it is difficult to see what harm would flow to the State if we were simply to let the judgment of the Court of Appeals stand. There is no realistic possibility that the judgment could "spawn[] any legal consequences." United States v. Munsingwear, supra, 340 U.S., at 41. Thus, there is no particular justification for this Court's intervention.

Accordingly, I would simply deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Opinion after remand, 667 F.2d 366 .

Same Court & Year US Supreme Court · 1980 Same Parties Alabama vs Davis Same Subject MRTP