Citation network
Marino Vs. Ragen
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 22, 1947
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. 561 (1947) U.S. Supreme Court Marino v. RagenSearch
-
U.S. 561 (1947) Marino v. RagenSearch
-
under Illinois practice, this petition for a writ of certiorari is properly addressed to this Court. See Woods v. PageSearch
-
to which we accept the concession of the state's Attorney General. In light of the confession of error ( see Young v. UnitedSearch
-
Bozza v. UnitedSearch
-
Baltzer v. UnitedSearch
-
such a petition when it seemed to appear that the applicant had not sought the appropriate state remedy. Woods v. NierstheimerSearch
-
this Court. Even in extreme situations, its application has been justified by sound administrative reasons. See Mooney v. HolohanSearch
-
clear that the rule may be applied only on the assumption that an adequate state remedy is actually available. Carter v. IllinoisSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
not represented by counsel, nor, as far as can be determined, was his right to counsel explained to him. See Foster v. IllinoisSearch
-
Page 332 U. S. 566 Thus, our understanding of Illinois law at the time of Woods v. NierstheimerSearch
-
view of the limited area to which the writ has been confined by the state supreme court decisions. See e.g., Thompson v. NierstheimerSearch
-
Barrett v. BradleySearch
-
Of the 322 petitions filed in the 1946 term, only two were granted. In Foster v. IllinoisSearch
-
in McLaren v. NierstheimerSearch
-
People v. TouhySearch
-
People v. RaveSearch
-
Ill. 435, 65 N.E.2d 23. Writ of error is governed by a common law limitation period of 20 years. People v. ChapmanSearch
-
People v. MurphySearch
-
See McLaren v. NierstheimerSearch
-
writ of error in Illinois is limited to matters in the common law record where no bill of exceptions is filed. Carter v. IllinoisSearch
-
People v. OwensSearch
-
or the subject matter, or to show events subsequent to the trial which render the original conviction void. Woods v. NierstheimerSearch
-
Thompson v. NierstheimerSearch
-
Ill. 169, 62 N.E.2d 788. Coram nobis is available only to present factual questions of a certain kind, People v. DryschSearch
-
Ill. 342, 349, 143 N.E. 100, which were not known to the trial court, People v. SchuedterSearch
-
failed to raise because of excusable mistake, rather than negligence on his, or his attorney's part, see People v. RaveSearch
-
It is questionable whether Illinois affords a remedy for a man deprived of his right to counsel. See Foster v. IllinoisSearch
-
People v. EvansSearch
-
surely know that he had refused to appoint counsel, and would be presumed to be familiar with the record, see People v. RaveSearch
-
the routine entry to the effect that the accused was apprised of his rights, which he promptly waived, see People v. GreenSearch
-
Ill. 468, 189 N.E. 500, writ of error would afford inadequate review. See Carter v. IllinoisSearch
-
may even be doubt whether an allegation that a confession was obtained by coercion would warrant review, see People v. DryschSearch
-
People v. SchuedterSearch
-
the exhaustion of remedies doctrine does not require the exhaustion of inadequate remedies. Hillsborough Twp. v. CromwellSearch
-
Driscoll v. EdisonSearch
-
Mountain States Power Co. v. PublicSearch
-
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. KuykendallSearch
-
Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. RussellSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Marino v. RagenSearch
-
Court. See Woods v. PageSearch
-
Young v. UnitedSearch
-
Baltzer v. UnitedSearch
-
See Mooney v. HolohanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial