Citation network
Durley Vs. Mayo
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 04, 1956
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. 277 (1956) U.S. Supreme Court Durley v. MayoSearch
-
U.S. 277 (1956) Durley v. MayoSearch
-
might have rested on a nonfederal ground, this Court will not take jurisdiction to review the judgment. Stembridge v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Federal and State Constitutions, but were contrary to a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Florida, citing Hearn v. StateSearch
-
S. 281 Florida's other state ground is based upon its Supreme Court decisions, and particularly upon Washington v. MayoSearch
-
jurisdiction and that its decision of the federal question was necessary to its determination of the cause. Honeyman v. HananSearch
-
Lynch v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and the state ground is sufficient to sustain the judgment, the Court will not undertake to review it. Klinger v. MissouriSearch
-
Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Co. v. SkinnerSearch
-
law Page 351 U. S. 282 raising the Federal question, and this court will then take jurisdiction.' Klinger v. MissouriSearch
-
Lawrence v. StateSearch
-
as applying the general rule of res judicata. See State ex rel. Cacciatore v. DrumbrightSearch
-
Williams v. PrescottSearch
-
D'Alessandro v. TippinsSearch
-
Davis v. HardieSearch
-
only where the issues have been raised and decided in a prior proceeding. See Moat v. MayoSearch
-
Lee v. TuckerSearch
-
Pope v. MayoSearch
-
and Page 351 U. S. 283 compare Florida ex rel. Williams v. PrescottSearch
-
Davis v. HardieSearch
-
to do so, he is precluded from raising issues which he could have raised in any such prior proceedings. Washington v. MayoSearch
-
Irvin v. ChapmanSearch
-
Johnson v. MayoSearch
-
Universal Construction Co. v. CitySearch
-
or by Washington v. MayoSearch
-
no allegation in this or the subsequent petition that the prosecution knowingly used perjured testimony, as in Mooney v. HolohanSearch
-
Holiday v. JohnsonSearch
-
Chase v. FloridaSearch
-
In these circumstances, the allegations of the petition must be accepted as true for purposes of review. See Hawk v. OlsonSearch
-
and adequate opportunity to raise them in prior habeas corpus proceedings. The Court strangely relies on Washington v. MayoSearch
-
Id., 77 So.2d at 622. Johnson v. MayoSearch
-
So.2d 307, and Irvin v. ChapmanSearch
-
relitigate issues which had been expressly presented and decided in the previous habeas corpus proceedings. See Moat v. MayoSearch
-
Williams v. PrescottSearch
-
Universal Const. Co. v. CitySearch
-
Faced with a similar state court order in Williams v. KaiserSearch
-
the use of Page 351 U. S. 291 testimony known by the prosecution to be perjured offends due process. Mooney v. HolohanSearch
-
Johnson v. MayoSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Durley v. MayoSearch
-
Hearn v. StateSearch
-
Washington v. MayoSearch
-
Klinger v. MissouriSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial