Bortles v. Jones
In re Application of Laverne Bortles for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Laverne Bortles v. James M. Jones, Warden of the Nebraska State Penitentiary
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Chappell, J.
Relator, hereinafter called plaintiff, filed a petition in the district court for Lancaster County against respondent, hereinafter called defendant, alleging that plaintiff was unlawfully deprived of his liberty, and praying for a writ of habeas corpus and a discharge from unlawful imprisonment, namely, solitary confinement in the Nebraska State Penitentiary.
His petition alleged in substance that on September 11, 1942, the district court for Dixon County sentenced and committed him to the Nebraska State Penitentiary for a period of 10 years from that date at hard labor, for the crime of automobile theft aggravated by habitual criminality. A certified copy of the judgment upon a plea of guilty, sentence, and order of commitment, was attached to the petition and made a part thereof. The validity thereof was not attacked or denied in any manner by plaintiff, but he alleged that without cause or lawful authority, and in spite of a provision therein that “no part of which (period of time) shall be in solitary confinement,” plaintiff was and had been for some time held in solitary confinement by defendant within the penitentiary.
The transcript herein is individually separate from, but the proceedings, judgment, and applicable rules of law were otherwise identical with, those in In re Application of Dunn, No. 32528, ante p. 669, 35 N. W. 2d 673 . For that reason they will be incorporated by reference and not separately set forth or repeated in this opinion.
*681 It is sufficient for us to say that for the reasons stated therein, and herein, the judgment of the district court should be and hereby is reversed and the action is dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.
Paine, J., not participating.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.