Citation network
Sunal Vs. Large
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 23, 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
- Relied / Followed
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 174 (1947) U.S. Supreme Court Sunal v. LargeSearch
-
U.S. 174 (1947) Sunal v. LargeSearch
-
deemed futile because of the state of the law at that time -- i.e., after the decision of this Court in Falbo v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 320 U. S. 549 , and before the decision in Estep v. UnitedSearch
-
that the classification was final, and not open to attack in the criminal trial. On February 4, 1946, we decided Estep v. UnitedSearch
-
States and Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
comparable facts that a registrant who had exhausted his administrative remedies and thus obviated the rule of Falbo v. UnitedSearch
-
were not. It cannot be said that absence of counsel made the appeals unavailable, as a practical matter. See Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
S. 467 . Defendants had counsel. Nor was there any other barrier to the perfection of their appeals. Cf. Cochran v. KansasSearch
-
facts relied on were dehors the record, and therefore not open to consideration and review on appeal. See Waley v. JohnstonSearch
-
U. S. 220 , 320 U. S. 221 . And see Adams v. UnitedSearch
-
See Estep v. UnitedSearch
-
and that Estep v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra, and Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
the use of habeas corpus in the federal courts to challenge convictions obtained in the state courts. See New York v. EnoSearch
-
concerned, the general rule is that the writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed to do service for an appeal. Adams v. UnitedSearch
-
As stated by Chief Justice Page 332 U. S. 180 Hughes in Bowen v. JohnstonSearch
-
Id. at 249 U. S. 384 . Cf. Craig v. HechtSearch
-
But denial of certiorari by this Court in the earlier case imported no expression of opinion on the merits. House v. MayoSearch
-
here. The case therefore is not one where the law was changed after the time for appeal had expired. Cf. Warring v. ColpoysSearch
-
of a new decision has given increased relevance to a point made at the trial, but not pursued on appeal. Cf. Warring v. ColpoysSearch
-
of law did not infect the trial with lack of procedural due process. As stated by Mr. Justice Cardozo in Escoe v. ZerbstSearch
-
It is said that the contrary position was indicated by the following statement in Estep v. UnitedSearch
-
circumstances which excuse their failure, habeas corpus may not now be used as a substitute. Accordingly, Sunal v. LargeSearch
-
will be affirmed and Alexander v. KulickSearch
-
Together with No. 840, Alexander, Warden v. UnitedSearch
-
We therefore lay to one side cases such as Bridges v. WixonSearch
-
U. S. 304 , and Eagles v. UnitedSearch
-
Rinko v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 325 U.S. 851. We also denied certiorari in Flakowicz v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 325 U.S. 851, but it, like Falbo v. UnitedSearch
-
remedies had not been exhausted, there being an additional examination which the registrant had not taken. See Gibson v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial