Citation network
Fex Vs. Michigan
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 08, 1992
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. 43 (1992) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Fex V. MichiganSearch
-
which entails certain disabilities, such as disqualification from certain rehabilitative programs, see United States v. MauroSearch
-
have held that a continuance must be requested and granted before the 180-day period has expired. See, e. g., Dennett v. StateSearch
-
Md. App. 376, 381, 311 A. 2d 437, 440 (1973) (citing Hoss v. StateSearch
-
Commonwealth v. FisherSearch
-
State v. PattersonSearch
-
S. C. 361, 363,256 S. E. 2d 417, 418 (1979). But see, e. g., State v. LippolisSearch
-
Carchman v. NashSearch
-
Court's decisions construing the lAD, it properly has relied upon and emphasized the purpose of the lAD. See Carchman v. NashSearch
-
of Appeals have split over the question of an lAD violation's cognizability on habeas. Compare, e. g., Kerr v. FinkbeinerSearch
-
F.2d 604 (CA4) (denying habeas relief), cert. denied, 474 U. S. 929 (1985), with United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
suit, Tr. of Oral Arg. 33, or a mandamus action, id., at 44. 56 States v. MauroSearch
-
ibid., is to understate the matter profoundly. This Court pointed out in Carchman v. NashSearch
-
U. S., at 730, n. 8, quoting Cooper v. LockhartSearch
-
F.2d 308 , 314, n. 10 (CA8 1973). These harms are substantial and well recognized. See, e. g., Smith v. HooeySearch
-
United States v. FordSearch
-
F.2d 732 , 737-740 (CA2 1977) (citing cases), aff'd sub nom. United States v. MauroSearch
-
is not uncommon for a detainer to be withdrawn just prior to the completion of the prisoner's sentence. See Carchman v. NashSearch
-
All too often, 58 detainers are filed groundlessly or even in bad faith, see United States v. MauroSearch
-
U. S., at 358, and n. 25, solely for the purpose of harassment, see Carchman v. NashSearch
-
authorities, he has done all that he can do to set the process in motion. For that reason, this Court held in Houston v. LackSearch
-
Syllabus Fex V. MichiganSearch
-
Dennett v. StateSearch
-
Hoss v. StateSearch
-
State v. LippolisSearch
-
See Carchman v. NashSearch
-
United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
States v. MauroSearch
-
Cooper v. LockhartSearch
-
Smith v. HooeySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial