Citation network
Parker Vs. Ellis
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 16, 1960
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. 574 (1960) U.S. Supreme Court Parker v. EllisSearch
-
U.S. 574 (1960) Parker v. EllisSearch
-
Id., 293 U. S. 138 . See also Johnson v. HoySearch
-
was no longer in respondent's custody in at least three cases not relevantly different from the present one. Weber v. SquierSearch
-
Tornello v. HudspethSearch
-
Zimmerman v. WalkerSearch
-
petitioner's exercise of civil rights in Texas (Election Code Art. 5.01) as his conviction in this case. See Harwell v. MorrisSearch
-
St. Pierre v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 358 U. S. 420 . Contrary to the unconsidered assumption in Pollard v. UnitedSearch
-
and the opinion of MR. JUSTICE STEWART for the Court on this point, 358 U.S. at 358 U. S. 420 , in Heflin v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and on March 23, 1955, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed his conviction in a brief opinion. Parker v. StateSearch
-
seems never to have been squarely presented to this Court, the weight of authority favors petitioner. In Pollard v. UnitedSearch
-
which was overruled by Heflin v. UnitedSearch
-
treatment of Pollard. The three cases which constitute the principal basis for the Court's judgment are Weber v. SquierSearch
-
and Zimmerman v. WalkerSearch
-
that the case was moot because the petitioner was no longer in his custody. The only case respondent cited, Van Meter v. SanfordSearch
-
transferred from one custodian to another, but where he was still in the penitentiary. See United States ex rel. Innes v. CrystalSearch
-
where it would be unnecessary to issue an order of discharge. The second case discussed by the Court is Tornello v. HudspethSearch
-
Not surprisingly, perhaps, the order in the third case, Zimmerman v. WalkerSearch
-
Moreover, Harwell v. MorrisSearch
-
dispute, where the real issue was not the impact upon the voter, but the impact upon the candidates. Cf. Logan v. UnitedSearch
-
and its relationship to habeas corpus are exhaustively discussed in United States v. HaymanSearch
-
U. S. 205 , 342 U. S. 210 -219. See also Heflin v. UnitedSearch
-
The Court mentions three other decisions, but apparently does not rest upon them. In McNally v. HillSearch
-
to the petitioner even before he commenced serving his second sentence. Id. at 293 U. S. 140 . Johnson v. HoySearch
-
model of clarity, and it is natural enough that some -- though not all -- courts have been misled. Compare Siercovich v. McDonaldSearch
-
F.2d 118, and Adams v. HiattSearch
-
F.2d 896, with Factor v. FoxSearch
-
F.2d 626, 628-629, and Shelton v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 242 F.2d 101, 109-110. See also Anderson v. CorallSearch
-
Wales v. WhitneySearch
-
See Muskrat v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
State v. WinthropSearch
-
People v. MarksSearch
-
Village of Avon v. PopaSearch
-
Roby v. StateSearch
-
Note, 103 U. of Pa.L.Rev. 772, 779-782, 795. But cf. St. Pierre v. UnitedSearch
-
cases have considerably undermined the philosophy of St. Pierre. See Pollard v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. MorganSearch
-
Fiswick v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 329 U. S. 211 , 329 U. S. 220 -223. See also Lafferty v. DistrictSearch
-
United States v. HinesSearch
-
See Walling v. JamesSearch
-
Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. InterstateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial