Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Harris Vs. Nelson

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 24, 1969

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

69 entries 7 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. Townsend Vs. Sain US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  2. Price Vs. Johnston US Supreme Court · May 24, 1948
  3. Johnson Vs. Zerbst US Supreme Court · May 23, 1938
  4. Fay Vs. Noia US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  5. Mooney Vs. Holohan US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1935
  6. American Lithographic Co. Vs. Werckmeister US Supreme Court · May 29, 1911
  7. Miner Vs. Atlass US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1960
  8. U.S. 286 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Harris v. Nelson
    Search
  9. U.S. 286 (1969) Harris v. Nelson
    Search
  10. relating to the use of interrogatories in habeas corpus proceedings, did not authorize their use for discovery. Wilson v. Harris
    Search
  11. As this Court said in Fay v. Noia
    Search
  12. See Peyton v. Rowe
    Search
  13. courts not only may grant evidentiary hearings to applicants, but must do so upon an appropriate showing. Townsend v. Sain
    Search
  14. Brown v. Allen
    Search
  15. Fisher v. Baker
    Search
  16. of the new rules. Hickman v. Taylor
    Search
  17. to note that, in 1938 the expansion of federal habeas corpus to its present scope was only in its early stages. Mooney v. Holohan
    Search
  18. Waley v. Johnston
    Search
  19. the factual basis of claims that state convictions had violated the petitioner's federal constitutional rights. Brown v. Allen
    Search
  20. trial or not. This rule has been generously construed to provide a great deal of latitude for discovery. See Hickman v. Taylor
    Search
  21. Thereafter, if the court concludes that the petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, cf. Townsend v. Sain
    Search
  22. U. S. 266 , 334 U. S. 282 (1948), quoting Adams v. United
    Search
  23. this statute in issuing orders appropriate to assist them in conducting factual inquiries. American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister
    Search
  24. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. NLRB
    Search
  25. C.A. 1st Cir. 1941) (order that certain documents be produced for the purpose of pretrial discovery). In Price v. Johnston
    Search
  26. holding the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules wholly inapplicable to habeas corpus proceedings. E.g., Sullivan v. United
    Search
  27. Wilson v. Weigel
    Search
  28. Jelic v. District
    Search
  29. proceeding. E.g., United States ex rel. Seals v. Wiman
    Search
  30. Schiebelhut v. United
    Search
  31. Rules of Civil Procedure as necessary to effectuate statutory policy with respect to habeas corpus. E.g., Knowles v. Gladden
    Search
  32. Others have apparently assumed that the rules applied to habeas without discussion of the question. E.g., Fortner v. Balkcom
    Search
  33. Lewis ed.1902). See generally Fay v. Noia
    Search
  34. U. S. 391 , 399-415 (1963). Cf. Frank v. Mangum
    Search
  35. and Cohen, Habeas Corpus Cum Causa -- The Emergence of the Modern Writ, 18 Can.B.Rev. 10, 172 (1940). Cf. Sullivan v. United
    Search
  36. rules in habeas corpus proceedings. E.g., Rule 6(b)(2), extension of time for excusable neglect, Bowen v. Boles
    Search
  37. Rule 15(b), determination of issue not raised by pleadings, Hamilton v. Hunter
    Search
  38. to habeas corpus of the rules concerning joinder and class actions has engendered considerable debate. See Mitchell v. Schoonfield
    Search
  39. Hill v. Nelson
    Search
  40. Adderly v. Wainwright
    Search
  41. much benefit. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting. I would affirm the Court of Appeals' holding in this case, Wilson v. Harris
    Search
  42. therefore, assume that he was and is guilty of the crime of which he was convicted. See my dissent in Kaufman v. United
    Search
  43. be treated as final, and no longer subject to challenge, at least by collateral attack. Although I admit that Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  44. U. S. 108 (1964), Spinelli v. United
    Search
  45. My conviction that this would be the best course is strengthened by recollection of our decision in Miner v. Atlass
    Search
  46. My Brother STEWART bases his dissent in this case upon my own dissenting opinion in Kaufman v. United
    Search
  47. Machibroda v. United
    Search
  48. However, for the reasons stated in MR. JUSTICE HARLAN's dissenting opinion today in Kaufman v. United
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Harris v. Nelson
    Search
  50. Wilson v. Harris
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial