Ex Parte Royall
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
*255 . Me. Justice Haelan delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an original application by "W. L. Rovall, to this court, for a writ of habeas corpus, directed to N. M. Lee, sergeant of the city of Richmond, Yirginia, commanding him to produce the body of the petitioner before this court, together with the cause of his detention, that he may be discharged from' the custody of said 'officer. The writ is asked upon the ground that the statute under which he was arrested and is held in custody is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, that he is restrained of his liberty in violation of that instrument. The petition was filed here on the 1st day of-December, 1884. It states the same facts as are set out in the petition in Ex parte Royall No.
1, and Ex parte Royall No.
2, ante, 241, just determined.
The application for the writ must be denied. It is sufficient to say that if this court has power, under existing legislation, and upon habeas corpus, to discharge the petitioner, who is in custody, under the process of a State court of original jurisdiction, for trial on an indictment charging him with an offence against the laws of that State — upon which it is not necessary to express an opinion — such power ought not, for the reasons given in the other cases just decided, to be exercised in advance of his trial.
Denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(imposing exhaustion-of-state-remedies requirement in absence of express statutory authority for doing so)
Cited by 20 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court6
- U.S. Courts of Appeals5
- Federal District Courts7
- Historical Federal Courts1
- State Highest Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
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.