Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ex Parte Tracy

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Apr-28-1919
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/93045

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
249 U.S. 551
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ex Parte Tracy

Excerpt

.....of redressing assumed violations of the constitution and laws of the united states by means of habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of other competent courts to afford relief may not be passed by and the original jurisdiction of this court be invoked in the absence of exceptional conditions justifying such course. matters v. ryan, ante, 249 u. s. 375 . when leave to file the petition for habeas corpus was previously denied without a suggestion as to the existence of any exceptional condition which would have justified a contrary view, such refusal presumably was based on the existence of the right to seek, if desired, other and appropriate sources of relief. from this it follows that, although we pass the application of the doctrine that the refusal of habeas corpus is not the thing adjudged precluding a subsequent granting of such writ page 249 u. s. 552 upon the same facts, nevertheless there is here no reason to grant the order prayed, since the previous order rested upon the right and duty to petition for relief, if habeas corpus was desired, to other and appropriate sources of judicial power. no reason therefore exists for granting the motion, and, to avoid any implication of a necessity which does not obtain, the motion is denied.

Full Judgment

Ex Parte Tracy - 249 U.S. 551 (1919)
U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte Tracy, 249 U.S. 551 (1919)

Ex Parte Tracy

No. ___, Original

Motion submitted April 21, 1919

Decided April 28, 1919

249 U.S. 551

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

SYLLABUS

Where this Court denies leave to file a petition for habeas corpus because of the competency of other courts to afford the relief ought, a motion for leave to apply for the writ to the district court will be denied as superfluous.

Motion denied.

The case is stated in the opinion.

PER CURIAM.

For the purpose of redressing assumed violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States by means of habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of other competent courts to afford relief may not be passed by and the original jurisdiction of this Court be invoked in the absence of exceptional conditions justifying such course. Matters v. Ryan, ante, 249 U. S. 375 .

When leave to file the petition for habeas corpus was previously denied without a suggestion as to the existence of any exceptional condition which would have justified a contrary view, such refusal presumably was based on the existence of the right to seek, if desired, other and appropriate sources of relief. From this it follows that, although we pass the application of the doctrine that the refusal of habeas corpus is not the thing adjudged precluding a subsequent granting of such writ

Page 249 U. S. 552

upon the same facts, nevertheless there is here no reason to grant the order prayed, since the previous order rested upon the right and duty to petition for relief, if habeas corpus was desired, to other and appropriate sources of judicial power.

No reason therefore exists for granting the motion, and, to avoid any implication of a necessity which does not obtain, the motion is denied.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial