Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Brown Vs. Allen

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 09, 1953

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

80 entries 8 linked 72 unlinked
Show
  1. House Vs. Mayo US Supreme Court · Feb 05, 1945
  2. Hebert Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1926
  3. Adamson Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1947
  4. Cassell Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1950
  5. Darr Vs. Burford US Supreme Court · Apr 03, 1950
  6. Hawk Vs. Olson US Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1945
  7. Mooney Vs. Holohan US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1935
  8. Neal Vs. Delaware US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1880
  9. U.S. 443 (1953) U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. Allen
    Search
  10. U.S. 443 (1953) Brown v. Allen
    Search
  11. Certiorari was granted to review judgments of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Brown v. Allen
    Search
  12. Speller v. Allen
    Search
  13. Daniels v. Allen
    Search
  14. has been construed by several courts of appeals. In Ekberg v. McGee
    Search
  15. that the statute meant to deny a federal forum where state procedures were inexhaustible. The Third Circuit in Master v. Baldi
    Search
  16. alternative state remedies with this Court's denial of certiorari therefrom is all that is necessary. In Bacom v. Sullivan
    Search
  17. F.2d 177, and Bacom v. Sullivan
    Search
  18. denied by this Court, there appeared a unique and extraordinary circumstance justifying federal examination under Darr v. Burford
    Search
  19. direct review of the judgments of the highest court of the state. As that question, pretermitted in our ruling in Darr v. Burford
    Search
  20. The position of the majority upon that point is expressed by the opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Daniels v. Allen
    Search
  21. review of habeas corpus practice in the federal courts in relation to state criminal convictions will be found in Hawk v. Olson
    Search
  22. U. S. 271 , 326 U. S. 274 , and Darr v. Burford
    Search
  23. federal habeas corpus upon full records of the state proceedings in the trial and appellate courts. In No. 32, Brown v. Allen
    Search
  24. the transcript of proceedings in the sentencing court. The District Court then dismissed the petition. Sub nom. Brown v. Crawford
    Search
  25. F.Supp. 866. In No. 22, Speller v. Allen
    Search
  26. District Court had before it the record which had been filed in the Supreme Court of North Carolina on appeal. State v. Brown
    Search
  27. there was the added alternative ground of failure to substantiate the charge. Sub nom. Speller v. Crawford
    Search
  28. F.Supp. 92, 97. In No. 20, Daniels v. Allen
    Search
  29. dismissed. On the procedural history, the District Court refused to entertain the request. Sub nom. Daniels v. Crawford
    Search
  30. F.Supp. 866, 870. The court cited from Stonebreaker v. Smyth
    Search
  31. This is, we think, the teaching of Ex parte Hawk, 321 U. S. 114 , 321 U. S. 118 , and White v. Ragen
    Search
  32. Hamilton Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf
    Search
  33. In fields other than habeas corpus, with its unique opportunity for repetitious litigation, as demonstrated in Dorsey v. Gill
    Search
  34. should have the power to take the denial into consideration in determining their action. We indicated as much in House v. Mayo
    Search
  35. as were permitted during the period when there was no review of the refusal of a habeas corpus application, Salinger v. Loisel
    Search
  36. Since a federal district court has power to intervene, there is a guard against injustice through error. Darr v. Burford
    Search
  37. is required unless no state remedy for the deprivation of federal constitutional rights ever existed. Mooney v. Holohan
    Search
  38. of constitutional rights, the District Court may properly depend upon the state's resolution of the issue. Malinski v. New
    Search
  39. federal constitutional issues even after trial and review by a state and refusal of certiorari in this Court. Darr v. Burford
    Search
  40. up those problems. III . Right to Plenary Hearing Petitioner alleges a procedural error in No. 32, Brown v. Allen
    Search
  41. accompanying papers as the court deems necessary, that a hearing on the merits legal or factual is proper. See Walker v. Johnston
    Search
  42. United States v. Baldi
    Search
  43. It was under this general rule that this Court approved, in Salinger v. Loisel
    Search
  44. That principle is also applicable to state prisoners. Darr v. Burford
    Search
  45. A way is left open to redress violations of the Constitution. See p. 344 U. S. 447 , supra. Moore v. Dempsey
    Search
  46. jurisdiction, whether through affirmance of the judgment on appeal or denial of post-conviction remedies. See White v. Ragen
    Search
  47. U. S. 46 . Page 344 U. S. 466 First. We take up Brown v. Allen
    Search
  48. questions on their merits, the State Supreme Court Page 344 U. S. 467 affirmed the conviction. State v. Brown
    Search
  49. State v. Davis
    Search
  50. State v. Dixon
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial