TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States ex rel. Lesser v. Hunt

UNITED STATES ex rel. LESSER v. HUNT, Warden

United States ex rel. Lesser v. Hunt, 25 F. Supp. 646 (W.D.N.Y. 1938)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, W.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
July 15, 1938
Judges
Burke
Citations
25 F. Supp. 6461938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1445

Opinion of the Court — Burke

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

BURKE, District Judge.

The petitioner herein is held as a prisoner in the Attica State Prison pursuant to a judgment and commitment of The Court of General Sessions of the County of New York, under date of March 16th, 1932, under a sentence of imprisonment in a State prison for a term of fifty years. ’The petition for a writ of habeas corpus herein *647 is made upon the ground that the commitment by which the prisoner is being detained was obtained by fraud and that the trial prosecutor by his sworn statement conceded the fact that the conviction resulted from perjured evidence and that by reason of the above the petitioner’s constitutional rights have been abrogated and that he has been imprisoned without due process of law and deprived of equal protection of the law. This is the first application for relief, upon the grounds stated, that the petitioner has made in any court.

It is the general rule that the Federal Courts will not interfere by habeas corpus with the orderly course of procedure under State authority, in the case of one asserting that he is being held by State authority in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, but will require him to exhaust the remedies afforded by the State for determining whether he is illegally restrained of his liberty. Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U.S. 179, 181 , 27 S.Ct. 459 , 51 L.Ed. 760 ; United States ex rel. Kennedy v. Tyler, 269 U.S. 13, 17 , 46 S.Ct. 1 , 70 L.Ed. 138 ; Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 , 55 S.Ct. 340 , 79 L.Ed. 791 , 98 A.L.R. 406 . Certain exceptions to the general rule have been made by the Federal Courts but the circumstances in the present case do not bring it within the exceptions recognized.

For the reasons stated the writ should be dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1938: 11940: 11941: 11942: 119382026peak 1938 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Johnson v. Wilson131 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1942)
  2. United States ex rel. Lesser v. Hunt117 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1941)
  3. People ex rel. Kurzynski v. Hunt25 F. Supp. 647 (W.D.N.Y. 1938)
  4. United States ex rel. Lesser v. New York34 F. Supp. 730 (W.D.N.Y. 1940)

Most recent

  1. Johnson v. Wilson131 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1942)
  2. United States ex rel. Lesser v. Hunt117 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1941)
  3. United States ex rel. Lesser v. New York34 F. Supp. 730 (W.D.N.Y. 1940)
  4. People ex rel. Kurzynski v. Hunt25 F. Supp. 647 (W.D.N.Y. 1938)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935) 1,511
United States ex rel. Kennedy v. Tyler, 269 U.S. 13 (1925) 149
Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U.S. 179 (1907) 123

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