TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex Parte Tracy

Ex Parte Tracy, Petitioner

Ex Parte Tracy, 249 U.S. 551 (1919)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 14, 1919
Judges
Per Curiam
Citations
249 U.S. 55139 S. Ct. 37463 L. Ed. 7681919 U.S. LEXIS 2056
Disposition
Motion denied.
Syllabus
Where this court denies leave to file a petition for habeas corpus, because of the competency of other courts to afford the relief sought, a motion for leave to apply for the writ to' the District Court will be denied as superfluous.
Summary
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO .RENEW APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. The case is stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion — Per Curiam

Per Curiam:

For the purpose of redressing assumed violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States by means of habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of other competent courts to afford relief may not be passed by and the original jurisdiction of this court be invoked, in the absence of exceptional conditions justifying such course.

Matters v. Ryan, ante, 375.

When leave to file the petition for habeas corpus was previously denied, without a suggestion as to the existence of any exceptional condition which would have justified a contrary view, such refusal presumably was based on the existence of the right to seek, if desired, other and appropriate sources of relief. From this it follows that although we pass the application of the doctrine, that the refusal of habeas corpus is not the thing adjudged precluding a subsequent granting of such writ' *552 upon the same facts, nevertheless there is here no reason to grant the order prayed, since the previous order rested upon the right and duty to petition for relief, if habeas corpus was desired, to other and appropriate sources of judicial power.

No reason, therefore, exists for granting the motion and to avoid any implication of a necessity which does not obtain, the motion is Denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1944: 11961: 21976: 11977: 119442026peak 1961 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bowen v. Johnston55 F. Supp. 340 (N.D. Cal. 1944)
  2. Dixon v. Thompson429 U.S. 1080 (1977)
  3. Oili v. Chang557 P.2d 787 (Haw. 1976)
  4. Yorke v. Frank295 F.2d 580 (7th Cir. 1961)
  5. Yorke v. Frank295 F.2d 580 (7th Cir. 1961)

Most recent

  1. Dixon v. Thompson429 U.S. 1080 (1977)
  2. Oili v. Chang557 P.2d 787 (Haw. 1976)
  3. Yorke v. Frank295 F.2d 580 (7th Cir. 1961)
  4. Yorke v. Frank295 F.2d 580 (7th Cir. 1961)
  5. Bowen v. Johnston55 F. Supp. 340 (N.D. Cal. 1944)

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