TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Telfian v. Sanford

Telfian v. Sanford, 161 F.2d 556 (5th Cir. 1947)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 16, 1947
Docket
No. 11960
Citations
161 F.2d 5561947 U.S. App. LEXIS 2793

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

The record leaves in no doubt that appellant’s petition attacks the judgment under which he was convicted and is serving sentence not upon jurisdictional grounds but upon the ground that the evidence upon which it was rendered did not support it. A writ of habeas corpus cannot try the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment of conviction. The district judge was right in dismissing the application. His judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1948: 11949: 31952: 11955: 11961: 11963: 11965: 119482026peak 1949 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States ex rel. Smith v. Reincke239 F. Supp. 887 (D. Conn. 1965)
  2. United States ex rel. Borday v. Claudy108 F. Supp. 778 (M.D. Penn. 1952)
  3. William A. Neigut v. Joseph O. Kearney, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Texarkana, Texas221 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1955)
  4. Smith v. State of Texas225 F. Supp. 150 (S.D. Tex. 1963)
  5. Lacewell v. Hiatt173 F.2d 889 (5th Cir. 1949)
  6. Exkano v. Sanford165 F.2d 435 (5th Cir. 1948)

Most recent

  1. United States ex rel. Smith v. Reincke239 F. Supp. 887 (D. Conn. 1965)
  2. Smith v. State of Texas225 F. Supp. 150 (S.D. Tex. 1963)
  3. In re Thompson194 F. Supp. 280 (D.N.J. 1961)
  4. William A. Neigut v. Joseph O. Kearney, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Texarkana, Texas221 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1955)
  5. United States ex rel. Borday v. Claudy108 F. Supp. 778 (M.D. Penn. 1952)
  6. Lacewell v. Hiatt173 F.2d 889 (5th Cir. 1949)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list