Citation network
Francis Vs. Henderson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 03, 1976
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
-
U.S. 536 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Francis v. HendersonSearch
-
U.S. 536 (1976) Francis v. HendersonSearch
-
then sought habeas corpus in the District Court, which granted relief. The Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of the case. Page 425 U. S. 537 MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court. In Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
administration of criminal justice require a federal court to forgo the exercise of its habeas corpus power. See Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
U.S. at 411 U. S. 242 . See also Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
recognized more than 20 years ago in a case involving this Page 425 U. S. 541 very Louisiana law, Michel v. LouisianaSearch
-
Kaufman v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 228 . We conclude, therefore, that the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the rule of Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
of the third judicial day following the end of the grand jury's term or before trial, whichever was earlier. State v. WilsonSearch
-
State v. ChianelliSearch
-
La. 552, 76 So.2d 727. See Michel v. LouisianaSearch
-
This question has been explicitly left open in previous cases. See Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
Parker v. NorthSearch
-
considered the merits of the prisoner's claim, different considerations would, of course, be applicable. See Lefkowitz v. NewsomeSearch
-
See Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 411 U. S. 245 . MR JUSTICE BRENNAN, dissenting. I dissent. Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
We should call to mind what was said in Fay. Fay established the principle which was reaffirmed in Henry v. MississippiSearch
-
U. S. 443 , 379 U. S. 452 (1965), and only last Term in Lefkowitz v. NewsomeSearch
-
U.S. at 372 U. S. 428 -434, 372 U. S. 438 -439. See also, e.g., Camp v. ArkansasSearch
-
waiver standard of Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
to introduce legal fictions into federal habeas corpus. The classic definition of waiver enunciated in Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
itself, by holding a hearing or by some other means, of the facts bearing upon the applicant's default. Cf. Price v. JohnstonSearch
-
it might be seen as a simple aberration. But it is particularly distressing in light of decisions such as Estelle v. WilliamsSearch
-
the prospect of being informed several Terms from now that the Court overruled Fay this Term, cf., e.g., Hudgens v. NLRBSearch
-
ante at 425 U. S. 538 , the Court notes that Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
the rule of Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
Federal Constitution. No support for such a proposition may be gleaned from such cases cited by the Court as Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
adjudication of constitutional claims into a doctrine essentially precluding such adjudication. See, e.g., Rizzo v. GoodeSearch
-
to Fay for waiver of the right to challenge the composition of grand juries on the ground that the rule of Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
of blacks and was not an impartial jury representing a cross-section of the community. The court, relying on Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
U. S. 391 (1963), and Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
that this collateral challenge to the grand jury's composition was precluded by the then recent decision in Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 558 whether petitioner should be so peculiarly indicted for this particular crime, see, e.g., United States v. CalandraSearch
-
Amendment's provision for presentment or indictment by grand jury has not been extended against the States, Hurtado v CaliforniaSearch
-
if it is based on an indictment of a grand jury from which Negroes were excluded by reason of their race. Strauder v. WestSearch
-
a defendant has no right to demand that members of his race be included on the grand jury that indicts him, Virginia v. RivesSearch
-
U. S. 565 (1896) Cf. Hernandez v. TexasSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial