Citation network
Browder Vs. Director, Dept. of Corrections
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 10, 1978
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Browder v. DirectorSearch
-
Dept. of Corrections - 434 U.S. 257 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Browder v. DirectorSearch
-
Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257 (1978) Browder v. DirectorSearch
-
each complainant identified petitioner as her assailant. After being informed of his rights as required by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
App. 118. Respondent cited Townsend v. SainSearch
-
U. S. 293 (1963), and United States ex rel. McNair v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
on the issue whether petitioner's confession was admissible under Brown v. IllinoisSearch
-
United States v. RobinsonSearch
-
U. S. 220 , 361 U. S. 229 (1960). See also Fallen v. UnitedSearch
-
Coppedge v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. SchaeferSearch
-
Matton Steamboat Co. v. MurphySearch
-
George v. VictorSearch
-
leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what had been determined,' Catlin v. UnitedSearch
-
and 2254(d) and the Court's decision in Townsend v. SainSearch
-
by granting the petition on the state court record. See Walker v. JohnstonSearch
-
that his motion was not based on any of the Federal Rules, but rather on the habeas corpus statutes and Townsend v. SainSearch
-
was timely because it was filed within the 30-day period allowed for appeal, as was the case in United States v. DieterSearch
-
In relying upon Dieter, respondent misconceives our holding in that case. There the Court followed United States v. HealySearch
-
We think this is a mistaken assumption. It is well settled that habeas corpus is a civil proceeding. Fisher v. BakerSearch
-
Hein v. UnitedSearch
-
Perhaps in recognition of the differences between general civil litigation and habeas corpus proceedings, see Harris v. NelsonSearch
-
U.S. at 394 U. S. 293 . In Thompson v. INSSearch
-
and 59 applicable in habeas corpus proceedings, the Courts of Appeals uniformly have so held or assumed. E.g., Rothman v. UnitedSearch
-
Hunter v. ThomasSearch
-
Rule Civ.Proc. 73(a), has resulted in dismissal of appeals from dispositions on habeas corpus petitions. E.g., Flint v. HowardSearch
-
F.2d 1084, 1086 (CA1 1972). See also Fitzsimmons v. YeagerSearch
-
Munich v. UnitedSearch
-
its own judgments during, but not after, the term of court in which the original judgment was rendered, United States v. MayerSearch
-
Bronson v. SchultenSearch
-
Basset v. UnitedSearch
-
and this rule was applied in habeas corpus cases, see Aderhold v. MurphySearch
-
Tiberg v. WarrenSearch
-
United States v. SmithSearch
-
of a habeas corpus petitioner's claim. Preiser v. RodriguezSearch
-
U. S. 475 , 411 U. S. 495 (1973). See also Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
Mattox v. ScottSearch
-
Wallace v. HeinzeSearch
-
Silk v. SandovalSearch
-
Although some aspects of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be inappropriate for habeas proceedings, see Harris v. NelsonSearch
-
youths in the Browder home violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments' requirement of probable cause, Davis v. MississippiSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial