Citation network
Peyton Vs. Rowe
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 20, 1968
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 54 (1968) U.S. Supreme Court Peyton v. RoweSearch
-
U.S. 54 (1968) Peyton v. RoweSearch
-
The District Courts, relying on McNally v. HillSearch
-
thereunder challenge the constitutionality of a sentence scheduled for future service. The decision in McNally v. HillSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
invalid because of a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court considered this issue in McNally v. HillSearch
-
Brown v. AllenSearch
-
Third, at least tentatively in Frank v. MangumSearch
-
U. S. 309 Page 391 U. S. 60 (1915), and more clearly in Moore v. DempseySearch
-
a procedure that reached full flowering in Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
s suggestion that McNally might seek relief by another route. Id. at 293 U. S. 140 . See also Holiday v. JohnstonSearch
-
To name but a few examples, factual determinations are often dispositive of claims of coerced confession, e.g., Reck v. PateSearch
-
U. S. 433 (1961), Leyra v. DennoSearch
-
lack of competency to stand trial, e.g., Pate v. RobinsonSearch
-
U. S. 375 (1966), and denial of a fair trial, e.g., Sheppard v. MaxwellSearch
-
resolving fact issues not adequately developed in the original proceedings. To that extent, it also undermines Moore v. DempseySearch
-
supra, and is inconsistent with subsequent decisions of this Court which have reaffirmed Moore. E.g., Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
review of alleged unlawful restraints on liberty. Calendar congestion, considerations of federalism, see, e.g., Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
development of the writ of habeas corpus did not end in 1789. What we said of the writ in a similar context in Jones v. CunninghamSearch
-
Though McNally held only that the petitioner did not meet the custody requirements of the statute, see Walker v. WainwrightSearch
-
filed his habeas corpus petition could still obtain relief from the restraints imposed by the parole conditions, Jones v. CunninghamSearch
-
habeas corpus proceeding even though he would still be confined under the second sentence if he succeeded, Walker v. WainwrightSearch
-
supra. See also United States v. PridgeonSearch
-
Supreme Court of Appeals. This petition was denied under Virginia's version of the McNally rule. See Peyton v. WilliamsSearch
-
upon a future consecutive sentence which affects or may affect a prisoner's current parole eligibility. Williams v. PeytonSearch
-
Martin v. VirginiaSearch
-
U. S. 140 . In Williams and Martin, the Court of Appeals concluded that this Court's decision in Jones v. CunninghamSearch
-
Walker v. WainwrightSearch
-
E.g., Rex v. ClarksonSearch
-
Ford v. FordSearch
-
Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
was equally applicable to state prisoners claiming their incarceration violated the Constitution. E.g., Darr v. BurfordSearch
-
loss or destruction of a relevant document or failure to transcribe the record over a period of years, cf. Norvell v. IllinoisSearch
-
which previously followed the prematurity doctrine to reject it in recent years. See Commonwealth ex rel. Stevens v. MyersSearch
-
Landreth v. GladdenSearch
-
fine in addition to a valid prison term. 150 U.S. at 150 U. S. 653 . In at least two cases, Morgan v. DevineSearch
-
See Regina v. AlburySearch
-
Wilkes v. RexSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Peyton v. RoweSearch
-
Pate v. RobinsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial