TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex Parte Royall

Ex Parte Royall, 117 U.S. 254 (1886)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 15, 1886
Judges
Harlan
Citations
117 U.S. 2546 S. Ct. 74229 L. Ed. 8721886 U.S. LEXIS 1833
Syllabus
' The petitioner prayed for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the State statute under which he was arrested and held in custody was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States : Held, That, without deciding whether the court has power under existing legislation, and on habeas corpus, to discharge a prisoner held in custody under process of á State court of original jurisdiction for trial on an indictment charging him with an offence against the laws of that State, such power ought n8t, for reasons given in Ex parte Boyall, ante 341, to be exercised in advance of his trial.
Summary
ORIGINAL. This was an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The proceedings were foundéd upon some of the legislation of the State of Yirginia respecting the receipt of coupons by the State in payment of taxes which is considered in Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 IT. S. 769; the. Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S. 269; Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U'. S. 550; Boyall v. Virginia, 116 IT. S. 572; Sands v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 585; and Ex parte Boyall, ante, 241. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Haelan

*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.

Cited by 20 cases

View all citing references →
1887: 11890: 11894: 11895: 11899: 11902: 11905: 11906: 21908: 11912: 11913: 11917: 11919: 11920: 11921: 11967: 11974: 11981: 11982: 118872026peak 1906 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wallace R. Fulwood v. William Stone394 F.2d 939 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
  2. Stevens v. McClaughry207 F. 18 (8th Cir. 1913)
  3. Bens v. United States266 F. 152 (2d Cir. 1920)
  4. McGuire v. Blubaum376 F. Supp. 284 (D. Ariz. 1974)
  5. Ex parte Roach166 F. 344 (N.D. Iowa 1908)
  6. Ex Parte Hudgings249 U.S. 378 (1919)

Most recent

  1. Bryant v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ETC.530 F. Supp. 1175 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)
  2. Hutchinson v. Casey507 F. Supp. 521 (S.D. Ohio 1981)
  3. McGuire v. Blubaum376 F. Supp. 284 (D. Ariz. 1974)
  4. Wallace R. Fulwood v. William Stone394 F.2d 939 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
  5. Ex parte Craig274 F. 177 (2d Cir. 1921)
  6. Bens v. United States266 F. 152 (2d Cir. 1920)

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