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.

Sublett Vs. Adams

Sublett vs Adams

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Mar-07-1960
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/99937

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
362 U.S. 143
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sublett

Respondent

Adams

Excerpt

sublett v. adams - 362 u.s. 143 (1960) u.s. supreme court sublett v. adams, 362 u.s. 143 (1960) sublett v. adams no. 406, misc. decided march 7, 1960 362 u.s. 143 on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of appeals of west virginia syllabus petitioner applied to a state supreme court for writ of habeas corpus, charging that his confinement was in violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. that court refused the writ without either a hearing or a response from the state. held: the facts alleged entitle petitioner to a hearing under herman v. claudy, 350 u. s. 116 . certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. per curiam. the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the supreme court of appeals of west virginia. petitioner charged that he was being held in prison without lawful authority and in violation of due process of law under the fourteenth amendment. the west virginia supreme court of appeals refused the writ without either a hearing or a response from the state. we hold that the facts alleged are such as to entitle petitioner to a hearing under herman v. claudy, 350 u. s. 116 . the judgment is vacated, and the case remanded to the supreme court of appeals of west virginia for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. the chief justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Full Judgment

Sublett v. Adams - 362 U.S. 143 (1960)
U.S. Supreme Court Sublett v. Adams, 362 U.S. 143 (1960)

Sublett v. Adams

No. 406, Misc.

Decided March 7, 1960

362 U.S. 143

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

SYLLABUS

Petitioner applied to a State Supreme Court for writ of habeas corpus, charging that his confinement was in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That Court refused the writ without either a hearing or a response from the State.

Held: the facts alleged entitle petitioner to a hearing under Herman v. Claudy, 350 U. S. 116 . Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Petitioner charged that he was being held in prison without lawful authority and in violation of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals refused the writ without either a hearing or a response from the State.

We hold that the facts alleged are such as to entitle petitioner to a hearing under Herman v. Claudy, 350 U. S. 116 . The judgment is vacated, and the case remanded to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial